Should the US make new nukes? Options

[*mipadi*]

Labs Compete to Make New Nuclear Bomb

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the San Francisco Bay area and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico are competing to design the nation's first new nuclear bomb in two decades.

Scientists at both facilities are working around the clock on plans that will be presented to the Nuclear Weapons Council, a federal panel that oversees the nation's nuclear weapons. The council will choose a winner later this year.

"I have had people working nights and weekends," said Joseph Martz, the head of the Los Alamos design team. "I have to tell them to go home. I can't keep them out of the office."

Congress approved the new bomb, known as the reliable replacement warhead, with bipartisan support in 2005 as part of a defense spending bill. The weapon would, by law, have the same explosive power as existing warheads.

Proponents of the project say the U.S. would lose its so-called "strategic deterrent" unless it replaces its aging arsenal of about 6,000 bombs, which will become potentially unreliable within 15 years. A new, more reliable weapon, they say, would help the nation reduce its stockpile.

Critics say the project could trigger a new arms race with Russia and China, and undercut arguments that countries such as Iran and North Korea must stop their nuclear programs.

The United States and Russia signed a treaty in 2002 calling for the countries to each cut nuclear inventories to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by 2012.

Source

Should the US invest in new nuclear weapons, or could this possible trigger a new arms war with Russia and/or China?

[*kryogenix*]

I think that if are to produce new nuclear weapons, we should reduce the amount of strategic nuclear weapons and focus more on tactical nuclear weapons.

[*Uronacid*]

I think we should try and keep other countries from having neuclear weapons, and build them ourselves It's a doggy dog world out there, and if we need to defend ourselves, then we should

[*mipadi*]

I think we should try and keep other countries from having neuclear weapons, and build them ourselves It's a doggy dog world out there, and if we need to defend ourselves, then we should

How can we argue that it's okay for us to not only have nukes, but make nukes, yet it's not okay for, say, Iran or North Korea to do the same?

[*Uronacid*]

because, we have to be #1... ever heard of the saying "what mother doesn't know won't hurt her."... what they don't know won't hurt them....



its not a moral issue

[*mipadi*]

because, we have to be #1... ever heard of the saying "what mother doesn't know won't hurt her."... what they don't know won't hurt them....

That argument is going to hold almost no weight in the international community, and it's hardly going to prevent other nations from building nuclear weapons in response.

[demolished]

i believe U.S should have their own private set of wepean of mass destruction. not every countries like each other. eventually, it could lead to war. they would possibly use nuke too which is originately from U.S.

powerful knowledge should not be sold to the world. it's pathetic that bill clinton sold the recipe of nuke to other country for $. it's going to reduce the chance of U.S winning, somehow.

[radhikaeatsraman]

NO.
Why invest money in weapons we're never going to use when we can use that money for the education system or health care...something that will directly benefit the people?

How on earth are more weapons going to help us? If other countries want to build weapons, let them. Let's just do what we can to improve our country and not be the international police.

[Ington]

How can we improve our country if we get blown away? Your idea is simply horrid, it will only leave the US defenseless. There is no such thing as being the bigger person and walking away from these matters. If we let other countries build weapons and we don't, don't you think our enemies would take advantage of that?

because, we have to be #1... ever heard of the saying "what mother doesn't know won't hurt her."... what they don't know won't hurt them....
its not a moral issue

But there's a chance (a very high one) of them finding out, anyway.

We should do what we need to ensure the future of the US, but not more than that. If we don't fund nuclear weapon research and build nuclear weapons, we are easy targets. If we create too many, the world will fear us, and there is an incredible risk of attack.

Basically, we're screwed both ways, unless we're perfectly balanced.

[*kryogenix*]

NO.
Why invest money in weapons we're never going to use when we can use that money for the education system or health care...something that will directly benefit the people?

How on earth are more weapons going to help us? If other countries want to build weapons, let them. Let's just do what we can to improve our country and not be the international police.

That's the thing. People say we're never going to use them. However, if we did not have nuclear technology but the Soviet Union had it, do you think they would have hesitated to nuke us? Having a strategic nuclear weapons arsenal is useful in deterring other countries with strategic nuclear capabilities.

Just like guns. It's better to have them and not need them, rather than to need them and not have them.

Look up guns vs. butter. It's the first thing you learn when you take economics. A country will have to decide whether to put their money into guns (defence) or butter (improvements). A country that spends too much on butter will be wiped out when a rogue nation attacks, but a country that spends too much on guns will be left behind and get worn out.

As I said, we should have just enough strategic arms in order to act as a deterrent. However, I think if we need tactical nukes, we should go ahead and build them.

And yeah, I'm against nuclear proliferation too. So I don't think we should just "let" other countries have them either. A nuclear armed East Asia is a scary thought.

[*mipadi*]

At what point, though, do we say we have enough weapons? We have thousands of warheads. As of the mid-1990s, we had over 8000 nuclear warheads. The number may have come down a bit, but not that much.

Do we really need thousands and thousands of warheads to be a deterrent?

Furthermore, how do we tell Iran and North Korea they can't have nukes, when we have the biggest stockpile of any country in the world?

[magicfann]

doesnt matter if u nuke china, we have so many ppl we'll just bum rush u and friggin own the U.S. real hard

[*mipadi*]

doesnt matter if u nuke china, we have so many ppl we'll just bum rush u and friggin own the U.S. real hard

Except that China has a very limited amphibious landing capability.

[*kryogenix*]

At what point, though, do we say we have enough weapons? We have thousands of warheads. As of the mid-1990s, we had over 8000 nuclear warheads. The number may have come down a bit, but not that much.

Do we really need thousands and thousands of warheads to be a deterrent?

Furthermore, how do we tell Iran and North Korea they can't have nukes, when we have the biggest stockpile of any country in the world?

As I said, I think strategic nuclear weapons are becoming obsolete and should only be used as a deterrent. If one hundred warheads will do the same damage as ten thousand, it would make more sense to have less, if only atleast to limit upkeep costs.

They can't have them because getting them would make them a bigger threat to us. The fact of the matter is, if anyone went to strategic nuclear war with us, they would lose. Even the Soviet Union at its height could have been destroyed. The big fear is having millions of civilians wiped out. If tactical nukes were used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be taboo today.

doesnt matter if u nuke china, we have so many ppl we'll just bum rush u and friggin own the U.S. real hard

The US Navy is the best Navy in the world, China would be destroyed en route.

[*mipadi*]

They can't have them because getting them would make them a bigger threat to us.

That's the argument from the US side, but like I said before, that doesn't hold much sway in the world community. Clearly it's a bit one-sided to unilaterally say that one nation can have them, but others can't.

[radhikaeatsraman]

At what point, though, do we say we have enough weapons? We have thousands of warheads. As of the mid-1990s, we had over 8000 nuclear warheads. The number may have come down a bit, but not that much.

Do we really need thousands and thousands of warheads to be a deterrent?

Furthermore, how do we tell Iran and North Korea they can't have nukes, when we have the biggest stockpile of any country in the world?

Agreed. If we already have thousands of nukes, why on earth should we make more? If Iran and North Korea want to make weapons of their own, we should just let them be. If they try to attack us, we have enough weapons to defend ourselves with.

Quite frankly, I think nuclear weapons are unnecessary. We really should partially disarm.

But that's not going to happen any time soon. :)

[marzipan]

Agreed. If we already have thousands of nukes, why on earth should we make more? If Iran and North Korea want to make weapons of their own, we should just let them be. If they try to attack us, we have enough weapons to defend ourselves with.

Quite frankly, I think nuclear weapons are unnecessary. We really should partially disarm.

But that's not going to happen any time soon. :)

i agree. the money could be put to better use, instead of making nukes.

[sakaitone]

because, we have to be #1... ever heard of the saying "what mother doesn't know won't hurt her."... what they don't know won't hurt them....
its not a moral issue

I think it's a moral issue, I agree with mipadi, why should it be okay for the U.S to have nukes?

Those weapons kill numerous people and plus the U.S. is spending more money on war when national debt is skyrocketing,this stupid war, a war triggered by the want of finding, "Weapons of mass destruction" when the U.S. is making those weapons.

If we make things as powerful as the atomic bomb we would wreck havoc upon the world. The Iran war is considered the 4th world war (Cold war being 3rd).

The bombing of the Japanese was horrible and even years after many people suffered because of the radiation (no clue how to spell that) that caused cancer.

We should focus on more important things like I dunno, Global Warming that could end the life on earth because of the hole in the ozone layer.

There are many things to consider because thinking about building some nukes to kill people, killing people is wrong, war is wrong, no matter which side anyone one is on lives are being destroyed because of war.

The U.S. shouldn't need to be number one, not if it means killing people. 'Course all of you are intitled to your opinions!

[*kryogenix*]

Agreed. If we already have thousands of nukes, why on earth should we make more? If Iran and North Korea want to make weapons of their own, we should just let them be. If they try to attack us, we have enough weapons to defend ourselves with.

So you're willing to let possibly millions die, just because we have enough to defend ourselves with?

That's the argument from the US side, but like I said before, that doesn't hold much sway in the world community. Clearly it's a bit one-sided to unilaterally say that one nation can have them, but others can't.

Do you agree that the fewer countries that have nukes, the better the international community is? The US has shown that it is pretty responsible with the use of nukes (other than the unfortunate attacks on H&N and a few tests that went awry). Would you sleep more soundly with Iran and North Korea using nukes?

The ideal solution is for all countries to get rid of their strategic nuclear arms, and we're on the way to doing that. Imagine what a nightmare it would be if all of East Asia had nukes.

If we make things as powerful as the atomic bomb we would wreck havoc upon the world. The Iran war is considered the 4th world war

We did that over 50 years ago...

[AngelinaTaylor]

I just feel so sorry for the world, and all those stupid, dumb, pathetic country leaders who decide to build them, because that's how the world's going to end - nuclear weapons and f**king hatred.. Is that what we need? I doubt it.. But people are too idiotic to understand it..

The damage's already been done. Let them build niclear weapons, let them f**king kill us..

Taylor``

[Crich323]

I say no. I mean, what's the point besides trying to prove that we're better.
Don't we already have enough nuclear bombs to destroy the planet?

[The Nocturnal Ph...]

Even if the U.S. were to make new nukes, they wouldn't say it. It would be top secret. Otherwise, it'll start an arms race, which is already currently going online secretively. >.> <.< >.> <.<

[sakaitone]

We did that over 50 years ago...

Does that matter? When the U.S. bombed Japan. Most people don't learn from thier mistakes and as they say history repeats itself. If we learned from the 1st war we had to not have war, do you think there would no war in history after that 1st war? If we had learned not to have war, would be discussing having nukes right now?

[*mipadi*]

Even if the U.S. were to make new nukes, they wouldn't say it. It would be top secret. Otherwise, it'll start an arms race, which is already currently going online secretively. >.> <.< >.> <.<

An arms race is the issue, but, as the article states, the US hasn't exactly made it a secret that they are considering the pursuit of new weapons.

[demolished]

doesnt matter if u nuke china, we have so many ppl we'll just bum rush u and friggin own the U.S. real hard

What the f**k? Is china really f**ked up? Are they seriously going to let people died no matter what?

Whoa, there are some moral issues.

Maybe, that’s why China is label one of top “smartest” countries because they have a pretty high amount of knowledge. They don’t care about moral educations or what?


Beside, is China a wealthy city? why is their enviroment so bad?

[*kryogenix*]

Does that matter? When the U.S. bombed Japan. Most people don't learn from thier mistakes and as they say history repeats itself. If we learned from the 1st war we had to not have war, do you think there would no war in history after that 1st war? If we had learned not to have war, would be discussing having nukes right now?

There hasn't been a nuclear weapon used in anger since... And that's what we're trying to prevent.

[sakaitone]

What the f**k? Is china really f**ked up? Are they seriously going to let people died no matter what?

Whoa, there are some moral issues.

Maybe, that’s why China is label one of top “smartest” countries because they have a pretty high amount of knowledge. They don’t care about moral educations or what?
Beside, is China a wealthy city? why is their enviroment so bad?

You asked if China is a city? You're joking right? It's the world's 3rd largest country and you ask if it's a city. Are you failing Social Studies? No offense.

Honestly, Spiritual Winged Aura you can't assume China has moral issues based on what ONE person said. That's so close minded, you're stereo-typing the Chinese goverment based on a person who spends their time online making empty threats, that probably don't have that much power in goverment anyway. There are millions, maybe even billions of people in China and you're going to throw away sense and make assumtions about a WHOLE country on ONE person. I don't want to be rude but that's pretty stupid.

[*kryogenix*]

You asked if China is a city? You're joking right? It's the world's 3rd largest country and you ask if it's a city. Are you failing Social Studies? No offense.

Honestly, Spiritual Winged Aura you can't assume China has moral issues based on what ONE person said. That's so close minded, you're stereo-typing the Chinese goverment based on a person who spends their time online making empty threats, that probably don't have that much power in goverment anyway. There are millions, maybe even billions of people in China and you're going to throw away sense and make assumtions about a WHOLE country on ONE person. I don't want to be rude but that's pretty stupid.

China is making loads of money at the expense of its environment (actually, at the expense of other countries' environments, but that's a different story). All countries do it, but China is notorious for its pollution and lack of concern for public safety if it means making more money.

[demolished]

You asked if China is a city? You're joking right? It's the world's 3rd largest country and you ask if it's a city. Are you failing Social Studies? No offense.

Honestly, Spiritual Winged Aura you can't assume China has moral issues based on what ONE person said. That's so close minded, you're stereo-typing the Chinese goverment based on a person who spends their time online making empty threats, that probably don't have that much power in goverment anyway. There are millions, maybe even billions of people in China and you're going to throw away sense and make assumtions about a WHOLE country on ONE person. I don't want to be rude but that's pretty stupid.

read and ...
comprehend
every word ..
again.

AND think again.

thank you.

[sakaitone]

OK look, if I am offending by any means I am sorry but you did ask if China was really that f**Ked up and I just thought that you shouldn't be so...I don't know...Close-minded. It's nice you have your your opinion and if I by any means offended you, then sorry. I kind of have a thing of exploding at people and that really gives me no right to insult you in any way,shape or form, so sorry again. I really didn't mean anything. It's amazing how many sorrys I can fit into one message. Yes, it's probably true that the enviroment is getting worse and that it's pretty "smart" as you put it. I agree with kryogenix about all the other countries. Like I said before, we should put aside war and work on inportant life saving issues like a cure for AIDS or a way to end world hunger....That's something most people can benfit from.

[demolished]

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... i was testing his knowledge with load of question marks.

I know China isnt really f**ked up before anyone mentioned it . i wasnt intentionally speaking directly about China. In a way, i was only making that dude look more "uneducated" with my rude questions. Since he was rambling his outrageous video thoughts, i would like to act retarded as well … of course, for fun.

however, where are you from? i guess, our form of comprehending language is probably a bit different. And i accept that.

[sakaitone]

It's really hard to get through what you're saying, when I can't hear you say it or sense you TONE of saying it, I find it easier to understand a person when you can observe them in person. Yea, because I am a very very slow person...in a way but no less cynical. If you're asking me where I am from. Well, where do you think I am from?

[demolished]

i dont see you as a slow person ... oh well.

China?

[sakaitone]

You would think so...but no. Not China. New York. I am kind of "concerned" about the future of America....Concerned isn't the right word...I could try "struck with unbelievable fear of stupidity in the U.S." which both seem to be a little too mean...which is really cynical and some what outrageous. I would like to save that for some old mad-at-the-world reporter. The U.S. is going on a blood-lust fest with all this war and creating nukes.

[innovation]

First of all, we're not debating the morality of the Chinese government. We're debating US nuclear policy.

Secondly, kryogenix, what is the difference between strategic and tactical weapons?

How can we argue that it's okay for us to not only have nukes, but make nukes, yet it's not okay for, say, Iran or North Korea to do the same?

According to the NPT, the five nuclear weapon states (NWS) are the US, the UK, the Russian Federation, China, and France. Non-nuclear weapon states that have signed the NPT have also agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons, and thus, by international law, Iran may not possess nuclear weapons, since it is subject to the NPT.

North Korea withdrew from the NPT, but that shouldn't excuse it from offenses committed before withdrawal. Here lies a flaw within the NPT-- no retribution for offensive nations after withdrawal from the NPT. That's why there has been so much discussion about inserting an exit clause that in some ways punishes nations from withdrawing.

However, I do agree that the US hasn't exactly been abiding by the NPT either. In this treaty, the NWS, including the US, agreed to commit to reduction of arms and eventual disarmament. My question is.. are these new weapons meant to replace the old ones? In other words, will the US destroy old weapons in exchange for fewer new weapons (if that makes any sense)?

[*mipadi*]

I understand that legally, there are certain treaties forbidding some nations from having nuclear weapons. I'm asking the question in the context of morals and ethics. Are these treaties even ethical or fair? Why or why not?

[sakaitone]

I understand that legally, there are certain treaties forbidding some nations from having nuclear weapons. I'm asking the question in the context of morals and ethics. Are these treaties even ethical or fair? Why or why not?

It doesn't seem fair....treaties are meant to supply PEACE, not who can have nukes and who can't. This is so 2nd grade. A second grader has 2 cupcakes, and she has two friends who both want a cupcake. Of course, she wants one for herself since it's hers, she gets it but who should get the other one? The one that's nicer to her or the one who has been her friend longer? The reasonable answer is cut the cupcake in half. But how are the countries going to cut the amount of nukes into even amounts. Not everyone is willing to share... So I really don't think it's fair, they should all have the same amount of nukes and I hope it would be a small amount.

[NinjaxMageLayout...]

No the us should not make nukes and we should try to prevent bush'es dumb a$$ from getting us into foreign affairs that we shouldnt be in because now korea vowed to bomb us with a nuke if we attack pre-emphitaly <--i cant spell that but oh well.And if a nuke is blasted,its the end of the world because the chemicals in the bomb is so bad and it will spread every where because of the wind,and it will travel around the world.Killing us.

[demolished]

......... so ?

we have the checks and balance crap.

one can override the president's decisions.

we have representatives, senate .. and etc.

[BabypeachesLR]

......... so ?

we have the checks and balance crap.

one can override the president's decisions.

we have representatives, senate .. and etc.

And that doesnt stop them from bombing us.What the hell can balance checks do to help us from being bombed.If they bomb us this whole world dies because of the chemicals will travel in the wind.

[sakaitone]

And that doesnt stop them from bombing us.What the hell can balance checks do to help us from being bombed.If they bomb us this whole world dies because of the chemicals will travel in the wind.

Wind? Do you mean radiation or something? Are you saying that if they bomb the U.S. that it will eventually kill the world? Hey, they bombed Japan and the rest of us aren't dead.

[snak3y3z1001]

No the us should not make nukes and we should try to prevent bush'es dumb a$$ from getting us into foreign affairs that we shouldnt be in because now korea vowed to bomb us with a nuke if we attack pre-emphitaly <--i cant spell that but oh well.And if a nuke is blasted,its the end of the world because the chemicals in the bomb is so bad and it will spread every where because of the wind,and it will travel around the world.Killing us.

one nuke wont destroy the world now if we blasted every single nukes from a single boomer then the world could be destroy. forgot how many we have around the world

[NinjaxMageLayout...]

Wind? Do you mean radiation or something? Are you saying that if they bomb the U.S. that it will eventually kill the world? Hey, they bombed Japan and the rest of us aren't dead.

Thats because it wasnt a nuke.

one nuke wont destroy the world now if we blasted every single nukes from a single boomer then the world could be destroy. forgot how many we have around the world

Please dont tell me that,im scared off my a$$ that korea will bomb us and i really really hope not........but anyway one nuke can destroy the world because of the radiation and the chemicals will pollute the water,and our needed sources and it will kill us slowly.For now all america can do is pray that it wont happen.

[snak3y3z1001]

^^ if that was true dont you think we be dead by now? the two atomic bombs that we dropped on Japan during WWII was a type of nuclear bomb. Millions of people died and shitload of people got contaminated by radiation. However Japan are still thriving. US have done a few test on US soil as well. We're still alive and breathing.

[magicfann]

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... i was testing his knowledge with load of question marks.

I know China isnt really f**ked up before anyone mentioned it . i wasnt intentionally speaking directly about China. In a way, i was only making that dude look more "uneducated" with my rude questions. Since he was rambling his outrageous video thoughts, i would like to act retarded as well … of course, for fun.

however, where are you from? i guess, our form of comprehending language is probably a bit different. And i accept that.

uh duhhhh i think you should stop taking everything i say seriously cuz honestly i like to dick around on these forums a lot

"is china really such a rich city?"
yes, china is a very rich city, especially with all these subcities like shanghai and beijing uh duhhrrrr gg try passing world studies before you start saying i look 'uneducated'

[*mipadi*]

Thats because it wasnt a nuke.

A "nuke" is a colloquial term for any nuclear weapon. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan, then, are considered to be "nukes".

Please dont tell me that,im scared off my a$$ that korea will bomb us and i really really hope not........but anyway one nuke can destroy the world because of the radiation and the chemicals will pollute the water,and our needed sources and it will kill us slowly.For now all america can do is pray that it wont happen.

A single nuke would not destroy the world, nor cause most of the world to come to great harm. Radiation would kill people in a certain area and poison other life forms in a nearby area, and could cause some trouble over a greater distance depending on weather conditions, but it would not destroy the world or even all life on Earth.

[*kryogenix*]

Heck even several atomic explosions would not destroy the world. The whole nuclear winter theory was brought about by the propaganda campaigns of the Soviet Union and US in order to keep a policy of MAD.

[demolished]

uh duhhhh i think you should stop taking everything i say seriously cuz honestly i like to dick around on these forums a lot

"is china really such a rich city?"
yes, china is a very rich city, especially with all these subcities like shanghai and beijing uh duhhrrrr gg try passing world studies before you start saying i look 'uneducated'

uh huhhhhh. is china a cool country?

[*ECD & C0*]

I think we should try and keep other countries from having neuclear weapons, and build them ourselves It's a doggy dog world out there, and if we need to defend ourselves, then we should

werd

You asked if China is a city? You're joking right? It's the world's 3rd largest country

its actually the 4th if you count the total US and all of its territories but it is bigger then the continental US

The area of the United States is 9,631,418 sq km, or 3,718,711 sq miles - about half the size of Russia; about three-tenths the size of Africa; about half the size of South America (or slightly larger than Brazil); slightly larger than China; about two and a half times the size of Western Europe

[fameONE]

War by atrition is the way of the future. *LoL*

Seriously though... yes.

Give war a chance.

[*I Shot JFK*]

Brandon!

hi.

[Chad_man]

The UN should give every contry in the world nukes and whoever uses them, have them tweeked to blow up once acctivated(^_^)

[innovation]

I understand that legally, there are certain treaties forbidding some nations from having nuclear weapons. I'm asking the question in the context of morals and ethics. Are these treaties even ethical or fair? Why or why not?

It's difficult to discuss ethics and justice in an abstract, philosophical sense. In international relations, when different nations have different agendas, compromises that may not be absolutely logical or "fair" must be made in order to maintain global security. Yes, from a logical perspective, the NPT isn't fair. How can we allow certain nations to have nuclear weapons and deny other nations the right to possess them?

But practically speaking, when the NPT was created, none of the five nations in possession of nuclear weapons were willing to sacrifice them. Requiring disarmament would lead to a diplomatic deadlock, and nothing would be accomplished. Thus, the NPT aims at preventing further proliferation in exchange for gradual disarmament of the nuclear weapon states. Is it fair? No. Is it practical? Yes.

However, there are certain aspects of the NPT that I believe should be modified or expanded, including the mandate of the IAEA, retribution for withdrawal, and measures ensuring that the nuclear weapon states are committing to eventual disarmament of their nuclear arsenals. I'm not in any way an expert on the NPT, so I don't know how to practically go about making these changes, but I do think that they are necessary in order to ensure the effectiveness of the NPT.

It doesn't seem fair....treaties are meant to supply PEACE, not who can have nukes and who can't. This is so 2nd grade. A second grader has 2 cupcakes, and she has two friends who both want a cupcake. Of course, she wants one for herself since it's hers, she gets it but who should get the other one? The one that's nicer to her or the one who has been her friend longer? The reasonable answer is cut the cupcake in half. But how are the countries going to cut the amount of nukes into even amounts. Not everyone is willing to share... So I really don't think it's fair, they should all have the same amount of nukes and I hope it would be a small amount.

Sure, that system works out when you're distributing frosting-covered cupcakes.. but not necessarily if you're dealing with deadly weapons. First of all, realize that some governments are essentially dangerous. Their decision-making processes are centralized, and their officials are often corrupt enough to sell nuclear material to non-governmental bodies, including terrorist groups. Secondly, it *sounds* logical to distribute nuclear weapons evenly throughout the international community, but this solution ignores the structure if our global system. Giving all nations the ability to possess nuclear weapons would create fear and instability and would certainly topple any sense of unity or security.

Realize that international relations is all about practicality and feasibility.. not necessarily "fairness".

[cashmere deer]

I think this has to be the easiest topic on here by far. Anyone who is for creating bigger and so called 'better' weapons in just a war monger..and no one likes those.

[innovation]

^ It's not that simple.

[cashmere deer]

Of course it is. Have we not already reached the point of almost constant fear? Eventually it will all come back to us. Of course we shouldn't worsen the situation

[smoke]

^I'm not in constant fear. I think the majority of the U.S. isn't in constant fear. There's a threat, yes, but fear? That's a little much. It's a lot more complicated then you say it is. Would you rather some other country create bigger, better weapons first and then send them our way?

I don't agree with making them for no reason, but if there's a threat, sure, why not? Only as a means of defence though. I wish that we didn't have to even worry about this. Everyone needs to disarm their nukes, but that's not gonna happen, so we need to be prepared.

[cashmere deer]

Wow, you just contradicted the hell out of yourself. First we make them..but only for protection..but actually we shouldn't have in the first place? Derr, I think only any idiot would support making new weapons even if it were for defense purposes. We need to work on creating better means of arguing rather than seeing who has the most powerful artillery, that is irresponsible and just plain stupid. There is absolutely nothing that would lead to us having to create said big bad weaponry. The only other places capable of it wouldn't even attack us for any reason at all. America is in deep shit right now and building more powerful weapons might help cool everyone off for a while...but would definitely destroy us in the long run.

[smoke]

^ Wow. I don't even think I have to say anything.

Obviously you misread my post, or simply didn't comprehend. Read it again, and if you're still confused, too bad. I don't have time to explain myself to everyone who can't read properly.

[*kryogenix*]

I think this has to be the easiest topic on here by far. Anyone who is for creating bigger and so called 'better' weapons in just a war monger..and no one likes those.

Not true. If I buy a gun to protect my home from burglars, am I a violent person?

Wow, you just contradicted the hell out of yourself. First we make them..but only for protection..but actually we shouldn't have in the first place? Derr, I think only any idiot would support making new weapons even if it were for defense purposes. We need to work on creating better means of arguing rather than seeing who has the most powerful artillery, that is irresponsible and just plain stupid. There is absolutely nothing that would lead to us having to create said big bad weaponry. The only other places capable of it wouldn't even attack us for any reason at all. America is in deep shit right now and building more powerful weapons might help cool everyone off for a while...but would definitely destroy us in the long run.

Let's take a second and ponder why weapons were created in the first place. Maybe our early ancestors had a discussion like this. For arguements sake, let's pretend they tried to be diplomatic in the beginning. But if resources were especially scarce, there would need to be some competition to determine who would be the one to take home the food. Using Rock, Paper, Scissors probably would not have made both sides content with the outcome. If both parties wanted the scarce resource so badly, is it unreasonable that they would use violence to make certain that they would be the one to have it? And then, when tribes formed, armies looked for better weapons in order to make killing more efficient in order to secure whatever they were after?

Having the proper weapons gives one more diplomatic leverage. This only makes sense. Imagine you wanted to cross a bridge, but a knight was guarding it. If the knight threatened to attack you, but he had no arms or legs, would you feel threatened at all by him? Perhaps he'd try to bite at your legs, but really the only damage he'll do is bleed on you.

[cashmere deer]

I am not arguing that weapons did in fact create leverage, all I am saying is that have we not seen what it has done? Can't we tell what is going to happen to us? I am so afraid that one day we are just going to blow ourselves up. Doesn't anyone else worry about that?


Haha, nice monty python reference! xD

[medic]

There is no need to make new Nukes. The US never really plans on using them, the closet we came was the Cold War, and those nukes are not used anymore. The US has the most high tech Nuclear program in the world, not to mention we have electronic pulse weapons that can do the damage that a nuke can, without the contamination and the deaths. There will be no county in the world that has a more high tech military then the US. Half the world works on US designed defenses anyway, the MIG jet is a exact copy of the F fighters. Germany in WWII was smarter then the US military wise, but that all died when Hitler shot himself.

[*mipadi*]

The US has the most high tech Nuclear program in the world, not to mention we have electronic pulse weapons that can do the damage that a nuke can, without the contamination and the deaths.

Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons are effective and useful, but they only knock out electronics systems, which, while effective, isn't nearly the same amount or kind of damage that a nuclear device, detonated in a traditional manner, does.

Half the world works on US designed defenses anyway, the MIG jet is a exact copy of the F fighters, and the AK47 is a Russian copy of American weapon technology

I'm not sure how you can argue that the AK-47 is a Russian copy of American weapon technology. The AK-47's been around since 1947, and was largely designed by a Russian (Mikhail Kalashnikov). Technically, it's design isn't a whole lot like American military assault rifles.

[innovation]

Of course it is. Have we not already reached the point of almost constant fear? Eventually it will all come back to us. Of course we shouldn't worsen the situation

I agree that the United States should discontinue its production of nuclear weapons. In my opinion, it isn't exactly positive diplomacy to resort to expanding the defense budget whenever the U.S. feels threatened as the world's sole remaining superpower.

However, I stand by my statement that ending production is not "simple". The Bush Administration and the American neocons are determined to maintain U.S. economic, political, and military dominance. It's very difficult to challenge this position, especially since rampant fear of terrorism still exists among the American public. Frankly, shifting power and influence away from those who fervently support American dominance is tricky.. not as simple as you would think.

(And I must apologize for the subtle conservative/Bush-bashing there. Let me know if that sounded too partisan.)

Let's take a second and ponder why weapons were created in the first place. Maybe our early ancestors had a discussion like this. For arguements sake, let's pretend they tried to be diplomatic in the beginning. But if resources were especially scarce, there would need to be some competition to determine who would be the one to take home the food. Using Rock, Paper, Scissors probably would not have made both sides content with the outcome. If both parties wanted the scarce resource so badly, is it unreasonable that they would use violence to make certain that they would be the one to have it? And then, when tribes formed, armies looked for better weapons in order to make killing more efficient in order to secure whatever they were after?

Interesting metaphor, but can it compare to the current nuclear situation? Afterall, nations pursue nuclear weapons primarily for diplomatic leverage.. but is political power a zero-sum game? Power isn't a scarce or limited resource, and surely, there are other methods for gaining diplomatic leverage over certain nations. Allowing the U.S. to dominate the global arena with few powers to "check" its decisions is rather dangerous, in my opinion.

I do, however, see the logic in producing new nuclear weapons, and it's definitely not purely for the purpose of domestic defense. That would be a naive perspective to follow. The U.S. also wants to defend its role as a global superpower, and thus, the creation of new nuclear weapons acts as a method of intimidation to deter other nations from attacking or challenging U.S. power.

[medic]

Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons are effective and useful, but they only knock out electronics systems, which, while effective, isn't nearly the same amount or kind of damage that a nuclear device, detonated in a traditional manner, does.
I'm not sure how you can argue that the AK-47 is a Russian copy of American weapon technology. The AK-47's been around since 1947, and was largely designed by a Russian (Mikhail Kalashnikov). Technically, it's design isn't a whole lot like American military assault rifles.

As for the EMPs, when they don’t have electronic systems, they can not do any counter attacks if they have no way of communication and more. A nuke is always last resort on all fronts, it can kill the target, but also kill millions of civilians in the same hit. EMP’s can fry all tanks, cars, plains, and communication and make way for a attack.

As for the AK47, I meant to say the AK47 was copied into the M16. And yet the M16 is as widely used as the AK47 by countries that the US gives it to.

[*kryogenix*]

I am not arguing that weapons did in fact create leverage, all I am saying is that have we not seen what it has done? Can't we tell what is going to happen to us? I am so afraid that one day we are just going to blow ourselves up. Doesn't anyone else worry about that?
Haha, nice monty python reference! xD

Can't we tell what would happen if we didn't create weapons? The Cold War went the way we did because we competed with the Soviet Union to the point of its collapse.

There is no need to make new Nukes. The US never really plans on using them, the closet we came was the Cold War, and those nukes are not used anymore. The US has the most high tech Nuclear program in the world, not to mention we have electronic pulse weapons that can do the damage that a nuke can, without the contamination and the deaths. There will be no county in the world that has a more high tech military then the US. Half the world works on US designed defenses anyway, the MIG jet is a exact copy of the F fighters, and the AK47 is a Russian copy of American weapon technology. Germany in WWII was smarter then the US military wise, but that all died when Hitler shot himself.

Putting a faraday cage or some kind of emp shielding can nullify an EMP weapon. Also, EMPs have the potential of causing damage to civilians just as well. Detonate an EMP next to a hospital and you have people with no access to life support systems.

Which MiG are you talking about? To be fair, the US actually took the swept wing idea for fighter jets from the MiG-15. Yes, MiGs started to be designed specifically to counter US aircraft (like the MiG-25) or designed after US aircraft themselves (like the Tu-4). And yes, the Russians did copy our missile technology. But check out the specifications for the Soviet Moskit missile and look at our Cold War era Harpoon missile and tell me which one is superior.

Anyway, I stand by my original arguement that if we are to no longer produce new weapons, at least convert existing systems to tactical weapons from strategic weapons.

As for the EMPs, when they don’t have electronic systems, they can not do any counter attacks if they have no way of communication and more. A nuke is always last resort on all fronts, it can kill the target, but also kill millions of civilians in the same hit. EMP’s can fry all tanks, cars, plains, and communication and make way for a attack.

As for the AK47, I meant to say the AK47 was copied into the M16. And yet the M16 is as widely used as the AK47 by countries that the US gives it to.

[edit]Wrong again. Eugene Stoner didn't design the M16 until 1957.

[medic]

Wrong again. Eugene Stoner didn't design the M16 until 1957.

There are attributes of AK47 that are easy to be noticed in the M16. The M16 uses some base technology from the AK47, but yet there are differences as well. One difference happens to be one is plastic and the other is not.

[*kryogenix*]

There are attributes of AK47 that are easy to be noticed in the M16. The M16 uses some base technology from the AK47, but yet there are differences as well. One difference happens to be one is plastic and the other is not.

I'm sorry, I made a mistake. I misread your first post. Disregard it.

[innovation]

This thread is dying.. or at least getting a bit too technical.

New sub-question(s):

If the U.S. continues to upgrade its nuclear technology, is a global arms race inevitable? If so, between whom? Is it occurring already?

[cashmere deer]

This thread is dying.. or at least getting a bit too technical.

New sub-question(s):

If the U.S. continues to upgrade its nuclear technology, is a global arms race inevitable? If so, between whom? Is it occurring already?

100% I can guarantee you that the entire world will never surrender to one nation as its supererior. GUARANTEED. An arms race is completely inevitable and in some cases is happening right now. Now I am not saying I am an expert, but this is common sense.

[innovation]

You can't call something "common sense" and affirm that it is fact. Nuclear diplomacy is a complex issue.. nothing within the debate should be reduced to "common sense".

[Blank-OuT]

I don't think US should make nukes, it would only make things worse. Other countries would wonder why US has nukes and why they can't and things can happen from there.