"We are on the verge of an exciting time"

[Cuivienen]

Agreed. But in the real world, we need them.

For what? You can't nuke terrorists, and no one nation can realistically challenge the US, with or without nukes. Nor would any nation really want to except some of of the loony-tunes in Venezuela, Bolivia, North Korea and Iran, all of which just like to bluff.


Anyone who thinks a massive weapon that can wipe out a city is cool is just sick. Massive destruction is not cool, it's mass murder: disgusting, revolting and unnatural. (A lot more so than gay marriage.)

 

[blackheart]

For what? You can't nuke terrorists, and no one nation can realistically challenge the US, with or without nukes. Nor would any nation really want to except some of of the loony-tunes in Venezuela, Bolivia, North Korea and Iran, all of which just like to bluff.

They will be a big challenge and threat when American doesn't have nukes and they do.

 

[Cuivienen]

No, they won't. No one can take out the entire US with nukes unless they had a stockpile approaching the size of the current American stockpile which not even the USSR had.

They know that the use a nuke is to consign themselves to complete annihilation. You think Muslim religious leaders would stand for Iran using a nuke? That China would stand for North Korea using one? That the people of Venezuela or Bolivia would still cheer in the streets for their populist leaders? No, there would be immediate revolution or invasion against any government that used nukes, and all possible threats to the US know that.

 

[Elrohir]

I've always wondered what would happen if a nuke hit a mountain. When I drive through the rockies, I have an amazing sense of awe. I wonder how man compares to nature in such an instance?

It depends on the size of the nuke and the size of the mountain. The Cheyenne Mountain Complex, the Heaquarters of NORAD, is buried inside of Cheyenne Mountain, and was designed to survive a 70% probability of continuing to function against a five megaton nuclear weapon with a three mile (5 km) CEP. So there's a good chance good-sized mountains would survive even fairly good sized nuclear attacks, and if they were as small as what we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they definently would. They would probably be scoured clean of trees and loose soil, and would be radioactive for a long time, but most of the mountain would still be there.

 

[blackheart]

No, they won't. No one can take out the entire US with nukes unless they had a stockpile approaching the size of the current American stockpile which not even the USSR had.

They know that the use a nuke is to consign themselves to complete annihilation. You think Muslim religious leaders would stand for Iran using a nuke? That China would stand for North Korea using one? That the people of Venezuela or Bolivia would still cheer in the streets for their populist leaders? No, there would be immediate revolution or invasion against any government that used nukes, and all possible threats to the US know that.

It doesn't matter what the sane, rational choice is that others might do in this case. It matters that the MAD doctrine has worked and still continues to work.

It wouldn't matter to us if the guys who nuked us were in turn nuked by someone else or were in revolt would it? There's plenty of crazy dictators out there who wouldn't hesitate. What would matter is that if we don't have nukes to deter them, such cases are more likely to happen.

 

[Masquerouge]

Exciting indeed. Woohoo. New nukes. I'm all hot inside.

BTW, Chirac is telling me he would be willing to test them for free, just to annoy the Kiwis.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It was pure luck we didn't have a nuclear exchange during the Cold War.

No, it was not luck at all. US and Soviet leaders knew the results of a nuclear exchange and worked to avoid one. The cuban Missle crisis was the closest we got. Reason won out.

What is scary today is that there are too many unreasonable leaders who want and or do control bombs and missles.

Gothmog, care to weigh in on this development?

 

[Cuivienen]

It doesn't matter what the sane, rational choice is that others might do in this case. It matters that the MAD doctrine has worked and still continues to work.

It wouldn't matter to us if the guys who nuked us were in turn nuked by someone else or were in revolt would it? There's plenty of crazy dictators out there who wouldn't hesitate. What would matter is that if we don't have nukes to deter them, such cases are more likely to happen.

No, no. You don't understand. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il, whoever else just want nukes to use a bargaining chips. They will never use nukes against the US because they have nothing to gain from doing so. Characterizing them as "insane" is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the motivations of their actions often propagated by various governments and the media that want them marginalized. While both deserve to be marginalized, characterizing even Kim Jong-il as insane is simply wrong.

Both of them believe that they are acting to an advantage, Ahmadinejad to the advantage of Iran and Kim Jong-il to the advantage of himself, his dead father and the Kim dynasty. Dropping a nuclear weapon on the US is not to the advantage of Iran or to the advantage of the Kims in any situation other than an American invasion (at which point American nukes are not an issue to them anyway). Controlling nuclear weapons, however, is an entirely different issue. Controlling nuclear weapons, particularly if they give the impression in the international media that they are unpredictable and insane, gives them an immense amount of leverage among those who are fearful of a nuclear attack. They will never have a need to actually launch a disadvantageous nuclear attack because the rest of the world has convinced itself that they do not think rationally and might drop a bomb at any time and so is quick to give in to demands.

I call Kim Jong-il's bluff, and I do so without any risk to Japan or San Francisco.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Both of them believe that they are acting to an advantage, Ahmadinejad to the advantage of Iran and Kim Jong-il to the advantage of himself, his dead father and the Kim dynasty. Dropping a nuclear weapon on the US is not to the advantage of Iran or to the advantage of the Kims in any situation other than an American invasion (at which point American nukes are not an issue to them anyway). Controlling nuclear weapons, however, is an entirely different issue. Controlling nuclear weapons, particularly if they give the impression in the international media that they are unpredictable and insane, gives them an immense amount of leverage among those who are fearful of a nuclear attack. They will never have a need to actually launch a disadvantageous nuclear attack because the rest of the world has convinced itself that they do not think rationally and might drop a bomb at any time and so is quick to give in to demands.

Much of what you say is correct, but I think that Iran thinks it can get away with a small nuke dropped on Tel Aviv. The west would not retaliate by nuking Tehran, so in the end Iran and the muslim world would would win. They underestimate what Israel would do though.

 

[blackheart]

No, no. You don't understand. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il, whoever else just want nukes to use a bargaining chips. They will never use nukes against the US because they have nothing to gain from doing so. Characterizing them as "insane" is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the motivations of their actions often propagated by various governments and the media that want them marginalized. While both deserve to be marginalized, characterizing even Kim Jong-il as insane is simply wrong.

I wasn't referring to them when I said insane. It is a foolish notion to believe that there are certain people who wouldn't hesitate to use nuclear arms against America if given the chance to do so with impugnity.

 

[MattJek]

Isn't there something weird about a person who thinks a new brand of WMD is "exciting"? Just a thought.

Sure, I picture him looking something like this

 

[azzaman333]

Beware the crazy guy with a nuke...

 

[kalif]

alltogether now: USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

 

[Cuivienen]

I wasn't referring to them when I said insane. It is a foolish notion to believe that there are certain people who wouldn't hesitate to use nuclear arms against America if given the chance to do so with impugnity.

But you can't nuke al-Qaeda. There's no al-Qaeda City or Islamic Republic of al-Qaeda. Having nuclear weapons is no deterrent to terrorist organizations, and the more nuclear weapons in the world, the more likely that terrorists can get ahold of them.

@Birdjaguar: I wouldn't be so certain. The Islamic world, Iran included, won't underestimate Israel again, not after multiple disastrous defeats. And I doubt that they think they can get away with nuking Tel Aviv. While the West wouldn't nuke Tehran, you can be certain that the Islamic Republic wouldn't last very long, and that's what Ahmadinejad cares about. He knows not to nuke Israel, just to make provocative statements and let Islamic Jihad and the others do their work.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Birdjaguar: I wouldn't be so certain. The Islamic world, Iran included, won't underestimate Israel again, not after multiple disastrous defeats. And I doubt that they think they can get away with nuking Tel Aviv. While the West wouldn't nuke Tehran, you can be certain that the Islamic Republic wouldn't last very long, and that's what Ahmadinejad cares about. He knows not to nuke Israel, just to make provocative statements and let Islamic Jihad and the others do their work.

I sincerely hope you are correct, but I have less faith in religious fanatics' ability to control themselves or their actions than you. We've had 60 years of nuclear peace. But as the bombs spread to less stable governments and people, It's only a matter of time until somebody looses a game of chicken. When it does happen, I'm sure that the world will be aghast and take action.

 

[Xen]

@Cuivienen

with all respect, I think you deathlly underestimate the effects of Jingoism even today. After all, 6 years ago, who would have said the US was going to invade and occupy Iraq?

 

[Quasar1011]

Okay, this article had a pretty poorly written sentence.

Altogether, the nation has 5,700 nuclear bombs and warheads of 12 basic types, plus more than 4,200 weapons kept in reserve as insurance against aging and failure of the active, fielded arsenal.

Most are 25-35 years old. All were exploded multiple times under the Nevada desert before U.S. nuclear testing halted in 1992.

Funny, I don't recall 9,900 nukes going off...

 

[Birdjaguar]

Welcome back Quasar!

 

[Kozmos]

Our words are backed with nuclear weapons! -Never trust a Indian with nukes.

 

[El_Machinae]

One question.

Has a nuclear power ever been invaded by a foreign military?