Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Cold War Redux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Cold War Redux

    I just watched a news segment that I found disturbing.

    Apparently, the US is looking a developing mini-nukes. Seems the trouble with the existing nuclear arsenal is that the nukes are too large in yield to be useful except to maintain the doctrine of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). A doctrine that many consider is not longer practical (if it ever was).

    Russian knows about this development and has stated that if the US pursues this research, the Russians will have no choice but to develop their own mini-nuke program.

    So, here we go again. Seems like the Bush administration is trying to keep the old game alive. The Cold War was wonderful for the defence industry and the military - make as scary a bogeyman that you can, do some fearmongering to the public to show that the enemy is nearly at the gates (in a figurative sense) and then put the military R&D into overdrive.

    Jobs all around as the defense contractors ramp up production and crank out weapon system after weapon system.

    So, if you were nostalgic for the good old days of the Cold War, have no worries. 'Cause it appears it might be 'business as usual' as far as a Cold War is concerned.

    The most frightening thing about this matter is that the mini-nukes are actually designed to be used. So MAD is out the window. Seems that mini-nukes are the ideal weapon to support a doctrine of pre-emption.

    Now we see the absolute height of Bush Administration hypocrisy - go on and on about WMD in Iraq, North Korea, Iran, etc. And contemplate developing a new generation of smaller nukes. Seems that US nukes are good and everyone elses are bad....

    Am I the only one who thinks this is a truly bonehead course of action for the Bush Administration to follow?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Black Moria
    Am I the only one who thinks this is a truly bonehead course of action for the Bush Administration to follow?
    Does the Bush Administration know of any course of action that is not boneheaded?
    I have no problem at all with being proved wrong. Especially when being proved wrong leaves the world a better place, than being proved right...

    Comment


    • #3
      I can't believe they are developing mini-nukes. What would be the point of them?
      "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

      Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Black Moria
        So, here we go again. Seems like the Bush administration is trying to keep the old game alive. The Cold War was wonderful for the defence industry and the military - make as scary a bogeyman that you can, do some fearmongering to the public to show that the enemy is nearly at the gates (in a figurative sense) and then put the military R&D into overdrive.
        The nice thing about having nations as the bogeyman of the day, is that they generally don't move around too much. Any half-wit with a map can find them...unlike some of the more individualistic bogeymen we've chased for the last couple of years. They just won't play fair and stay in one place long enough for us to kill them.
        I have no problem at all with being proved wrong. Especially when being proved wrong leaves the world a better place, than being proved right...

        Comment


        • #5
          The point is - they are nukes one can actually USE.

          You can't use the multi-megaton nukes for anything except as city-killers.

          The new generation of nukes will be designed to be used against strongpoints, armor and troop concentrations, command & control assets, supply points, etc. Nuke effects probably limited to kilometer radius or smaller.

          But a nuke is a nuke. A small one that one would consider using scares the hell out of me more than a large nuke that only the most insane or the most desperate individual would even consider using.

          Comment


          • #6
            The mini-nuke will be developed to minimize radiation effects except at the immediate target.

            Make for a more enviromentally friendly nuke. As if that matters....

            Comment


            • #7
              Hello,

              Soon or later, somebody will want to build an arensal of mini-nuke weapons, and I would prefer it be the United States, so I don't think this is a stupid course to take. With the advent of better defensive technology, soon or later, MAD will go out of window regardless of how you use nuclear weapons or not.

              I think this was done to keep American hegemony intact, which I support fully. Besides, Saddam was in violation of attempting to develop a nuclear program anyway. You don't see Americans invading Iran or North Korea even though both are moving toward in developing a few nuclear weapons. What's your problem? Even so, if Saddam or a single Arab country had a single nuclear missile, they wouldn't be allowed to live. It's a well-known fact that they will use it on Israel and America, they are more than willing to risk destruction of their countries if it got rid of both countries (Israel and America). That's why no Arab country has yet built a nuclear missile, and I'd like to keep that way, in order to keep the balance of power tipped in Israel and America's favor.

              In the next 50 years, more countries will want nuclear bombs just for hell of it, and I would like to have America to retain some good nuclear options instead of being stuck with current nuclear arensals.

              In all, I support Bush fully. If you feel threatened by America, then why doesn't Canada build her own nuclear arensal? No? Obviously, Bush hasn't threatened Canada, now has he? No. Then Bush's pretty smart in my own book.

              Dan
              Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

              "Aim small, miss small."

              Comment


              • #8
                Building these things would be really stupid. They aren't needed and waste a lot of taxpayer money. All they do is increase the tensions across the world. The military can't afford doctors for wounded men but has the cash for this?
                "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Cheetah772

                  Man, I can't believe you bought into that baloney. Its time to stop wrapping yourself in the flag and wake up to the reality that the US developing a mini-nuke program is just plain nuts at any level you look at it.

                  Other countries will develop mini-nukes in RESPONSE to what the US is attempting to undertake. A Cold War with multiple nations participating is a lose-lose situation for everyone - the US included.

                  The US would be making yet more enemies if they pursue this.

                  What about the cost to the US on the world stage if they use nukes first in some conflict.

                  Escalation..... the US sets off a nuke (even a small one) and runs the risk of a increasing exchange of nuke weapons. Small ones at first, then more....then bigger ones, etc.

                  It is literally the road to hell.....
                  Last edited by Black Moria; 21 Oct 03, 23:21.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Black Moria
                    Cheetah772

                    Man, I can't believe you bought into that baloney. Its time to stop wrapping yourself in the flag and wake up to the reality that the US developing a mini-nuke program is just plans nuts at any level you look at it.

                    Other countries will develop mini-nukes in RESPONSE to what the US is attempting to undertake. A Cold War with multiple nations participating is a lose-lose situation for everyone - the US included.

                    The US would be making yet more enemies if they pursue this.

                    What about the cost to the US on the world stage if they use nukes first in some conflict.

                    Escalation..... the US sets off a nuke (even a small one) and runs the risk of a increasing exchange of nuke weapons. Small ones at first, then more....then bigger ones, etc.

                    It is literally the road to hell.....
                    Okay,

                    North Korea was already planning to develop a nuclear bomb long before Bush came into the office, and Iran was heading this way as well, in fact, all of this happened on Clinton's watch. That was way before Bush's Axis of Evil speech.

                    This proves that the countries aren't responding to the US hegemony, they WANT THEM. That's right, they want the nuclear bombs badly enough to be willing to starve their countries just for hell of it.

                    Dan
                    Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                    "Aim small, miss small."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What's wrong with Iran having a couple of nukes? We've got thousands.
                      "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                      Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The US already has response for that.

                        You already have your own nuclear arsenal. And a large military. And diplomacy. And weapon inspections. And sanctions. And a number of allies that the US hasn't pissed off yet.

                        Consider this - North Korea was complying with inspections and international agreements.

                        Then Bush opened his fat mouth and said North Korea was part of a Axis of Evil, along with Iran and Iraq. Then Bush created a crisis concerning Iraq and invaded. And a doctrine of pre-emption.

                        Now the very paranoid leader of North Korea goes - 'Holy ****....they will be coming for now! If I want any sort of chance, I need a edge'

                        So out goes the monitoring cameras, out go the inspection teams, and crank up the weapons development program full throttle.

                        The North Korea leader firmly believes that the US is coming for him. Which is why he is demanding a non-aggression pact with the US. And arming his state with nukes to deter American aggression.

                        Cause and Effect..... pure and simple.

                        And damn....if history is not repeating itself. Seems like the last member of the Axis of Evil has also gotten the message as well, since Iran is now seemly involved in a nuke weapon program....
                        Last edited by Black Moria; 21 Oct 03, 23:40.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Chuck
                          What's wrong with Iran having a couple of nukes? We've got thousands.
                          Maybe, this has to do more with Israel. If a single Arab country has even one nuclear bomb, you can bet that it is willing to use that a single nuclear bomb on Israel as long it kills a lot of Jews. There's plenty of Arabs to go around, Israel can't survive a single nuclear bomb blast, because she is so small as that the radioaction will spread over every inch of Israel.

                          If in 1973 war, Arabs had a few nuclear bombs, then rest assured, they would have used them even if that meant destruction of their own Arab countries.

                          As for North Korea, if she has some, then she can easily bully or blackmail South Korea or Japan in making economic concessions. In fact, North Korea is already doing that, it's all in under table deals.

                          Dan
                          Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                          "Aim small, miss small."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Well it's because we're "responsible and won't use them"..

                            Oh wait.

                            *ponders mini-nukes*

                            Nevermind.
                            "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                            – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              From a strict military perspective, I just don't get it. If radiation is limited to a one-kilometer radius (and I would expect the bomb blast to be much smaller than this if radiation itself does not extend beyond that range), what's the point of using this instead of conventional bombs???

                              The whole point of developing nuclear weapons was their terrible destructive capacity. One ICBM can level a large city. But what do you want to do with a mini-nuke than a cheaper conventional bomb can't do?

                              Strike a key enemy point with a mini-nuke? Damn it, how do you occupy that point after when radiation has now taken hold into that key point?

                              It's like some people want us to believe that you can fight a conventional war by using nukes here and there. Nope. It does not work that way. Can you imagine for example the US having used a mini-nuke at Nassiriyah for example?

                              Mini-nukes doesn't make sense...unless you are a terrorist. Then it makes a lot of sense. Mini-nuking Central Park today? Or the Capitol?...It would be so easy with mini-nuke technology.

                              Dan, I believe you are dillusioning yourself when you say that the US should develop mini-nukes. If these things come into existence, it's the worst nightmare come true for the US. The fact that the US could develop mini-nukes is NOT a protection against them. It won't protect you at all since like I said these weapons would be the perfect terrorist dream bomb.

                              Consequently, the national interests of the US would be much better served in insuring that these mini-nukes never gets developed. Never.

                              Developing these mini-nukes would be only encouraging even greater nuclear proliferation, the very problem that the US is saying to be fighting against these days by having North Korea and Iran on watch.

                              You can't on one hand disapprove nuclear weapons proliferation in other countries, and on the other hand develop mini-nukes for your own use. Double standards here that would destroy the credibility of the US.
                              Last edited by Tzar; 21 Oct 03, 23:50.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X