A nuclear arms race?

Anyone can post and discuss breaking news that interest them (please respect posting guidelines and be sure to reference properly).
Forum rules
Please be sure to check our forum's Rules & Guidelines

A nuclear arms race?

Postby Forest_Dump on February 24th, 2017, 10:48 am 

This one is pure bizarre. Trump, apparently, wants to rachet up the US supply of nukes. Truth be told, this does not worry me because we all know that there are more than enough nukes already out there to do more than enough damage to the world so a few more in the US (or Russia's or China's) stock pile would only be redundant. And frankly I am far more worried about biological weapons that are far more likely to get out of control and be used more cheaply and easily by unstable minds. So, what is the point of this kind of unnecessary expenditure? Seems like a lot of money being spent on a white elephant to me.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-nucl ... -1.3996556
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8617
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby Braininvat on February 24th, 2017, 1:10 pm 

Again, he sounds like the dumbest of rookie politicians when he talks about "being at the top of the pack." Seems not to grasp that anyone having an edge and, worse, boasting about that edge, is destabilizing.

He seems to be swayed by youth and beauty. Think Justin could talk some sense into him?
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby wolfhnd on February 24th, 2017, 3:22 pm 

The important thing is that the threat of nuclear strikes be more fairly distributed. U.S. allies such as Canada, Australia, and Japan should share more of the cost and psychological burden of living under the threat of first strikes.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4072
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby Forest_Dump on February 24th, 2017, 4:00 pm 

wolfhnd wrote:The important thing is that the threat of nuclear strikes be more fairly distributed. U.S. allies such as Canada, Australia, and Japan should share more of the cost and psychological burden of living under the threat of first strikes.


I don't think many people in Canada, Australia or Japan feel any less threatened by nuclear war than people living in Washington, a presumable first target of even a very limited exchange. Personally I am not sure there would be much of an upside to surviving a first strike. It would just be more of a slow descent into hell and then death (in a year or two?) than an immediate one. What we must do is prevent any kind of exchange.

So I don't see the upside even granted that there could be one to spending more on nukes. Increasing the US nuclear arsenal is not going to shift any attention away from the US as any kind of target, it is not going to scare or deter anyone any more than they already are. Do you think even anyone in North Korea thinks there currently exists a window for survival if they launched every thing they had or were likely to get over the next 100 years at the US? If ISIS had all the nukes of Israel or even Russia and was crasy enough to use them all (which granted they might be willing to do if they had the chance), do you seriously think they would be deterred if the US had 1000 more nukes of any kind?

To me this is just a proposed expenditure that would give absolutely no benefit or improvement to anyone. So what am I missing here? So far I see less offered as a practical gain that from the expenditure of the $20 billion wall.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8617
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby RoccoR on February 24th, 2017, 4:39 pm 

Braininvat, et al,

As we all know, there is no bigger vipers' next then that on Capitol Hill. It is an extremely rare occasion that you can actually find the work of the nation being given priority. The majority of the professional politicians are merely one step above a Snake Oil Salesman and several steps beneath a hungry used car salesman.

The House and Senate haven't improved the plight of the American People in more that half a century. They haven't even begun to fix the tax code and haven't actually created the necessary environment for the growth in in education, scientific research and development.

It is quite possible that the it will become necessary to replace most of the obsolete and ineffective politicians in the next few years. They are simply not up to the task.

Braininvat » February 24th, 2017, 1:10 pm wrote:Again, he sounds like the dumbest of rookie politicians when he talks about "being at the top of the pack." Seems not to grasp that anyone having an edge and, worse, boasting about that edge, is destabilizing.

He seems to be swayed by youth and beauty. Think Justin could talk some sense into him?

(REFERENCE)

Career Politicians on the Rise: How to Stem the Tide

(COMMENT)

I think it is time to set standards and performance for the Congress and the Senate. Failure to accomplish certain task and legislative goals should be met with economic consequences; and even reduction in pay and allowances. Partisan end-fighting should be met with fines and reparations.

Unproductive members should have term-limits set and the retirement and other golden parachutes like the unspent campaign contributions.

The mainstream media, political pundits, and the DNC/RNC should not be disappointed in the election of President Trump. Although he was not my first choice, the two major parties have been really short on offering up quality leadership.

Most Respectfully,
R
User avatar
RoccoR
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 05 Feb 2017


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby wolfhnd on February 24th, 2017, 7:17 pm 

User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4072
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby Forest_Dump on February 24th, 2017, 8:01 pm 

An interesting article.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8617
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby Braininvat on February 24th, 2017, 8:34 pm 

IMO there is no rational basis for the making of nuclear weapons. Everyone who fancies themselves having some nuanced and ideologically sophisticated system of justification for them has simply lost touch with the reality of being a human being living on this planet. I never feel more like a sad-eyed alien anthropologist visiting Earth than when I hear people engaged in cool headed calculations and rationale making for having them around in any form. Zero nukes is not an option among many, it is the only goal that any civilized species should consider. Any nation that cannot join in some form of START treaty should be rendered a pariah in the world community, with harsh and unremitting sanctions. I am so very tired of hearing people put ideology before human beings and thinking that makes them look savvy and worldly. You humans, er I mean WE humans, are all going to be obliterated if we don't get together and figure out how to completely eliminate these monstrous devices from the planet. There is no "balanced" view on this, because there is no "balance" of power with nukes. Even a very few can destroy this planet for species like us, so there are no winners, only losers, in any scenario where some crazy person launches a nuke. I have no idea how we've been so lucky as to not have anyone go "rogue" in the past 60-plus years and unleash Hell on Earth. Why the f--k does anyone think that kind of ridiculous luck will continue? This is not a "Left" position or any kind of -ist position, this is a "Holy-crap-I-want-to-keep-living" position. When did we all get some complacent about nukes? Complacent as in the standard "well, of course, MAD assures us that no one would actually USE them, right?" GMAFB.

This is an issue where we SHOULD have emotions, strong emotions, and not pussyfoot around, because this is not some abstract tweaking of currencies or balancing of social priorities or some theoretical benefit of some kind of regulatory policy, this is about the immediate peril in which all sentient life presently lives.

Try saying this sentence and see how it feels when you say it: "Nuclear weapons are absolutely and utterly evil and an affront to everything that makes us human." Does it seem false? Does your clever intellect want to second-guess what is meant by "evil" or perhaps redefine what is meant by human? Do you want to go hide in some lofty intellectual gray area and pretend that makes you smart? Search your souls on this issue. What kind of world do you want your children and grandchildren to inherit?
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby Forest_Dump on February 24th, 2017, 8:53 pm 

I can't remember anymore which countries have nukes now. Has any of them actually given them up?
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8617
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby RoccoR on February 24th, 2017, 9:04 pm 

Forest_Dump » February 24th, 2017, 8:53 pm wrote:I can't remember anymore which countries have nukes now. Has any of them actually given them up?

(REFERENCE)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... bcdc8d.png

(COMMENT)

These are unclassified open source figures. They are exaggerated.

And they do not state the relationship with their respective delivery systems.

Most Respectfully,
R
User avatar
RoccoR
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 05 Feb 2017


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby wolfhnd on February 24th, 2017, 11:02 pm 

The people that hate nuclear weapons the most may be those who have been prevented from playing at war because they exist.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4072
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby Forest_Dump on February 24th, 2017, 11:20 pm 

While I agree with BIV that we should all want nukes to disappear with all other WMD and, frankly, all weapons, it is unreasonable to believe that will happen in the foreseeable future. On the converse, I fulle expect to see nuclear proliferation continue with, for example, Iran being added to the list eventually and perhaps others. Additionally, I think it is inevitable that one (at least) will be set off (my bet is some terrorist using a small stolen tactical nuke). So some kinds of deterence are going to remain necessary and that absolutely has to include certainty of some appropriate level of retaliation. Suffice to say I have not seen anything to convince me that any form of economic retaliation works. On the other hand, no two nuclear countries have gone to open war with each other, trivial as that may seem.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8617
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby wolfhnd on February 24th, 2017, 11:57 pm 

Those of us who grew up in the 50s and 60s were at least partially traumatized as kids by nuclear war preparedness. While many may joke about duck and cover I think everyone who went through that training at a young age may have at least subconscious psychological scars. Everyone wants them to go away and I think especially the generation who grew up with them for the first time.

I agree with Forest that non proliferation is a day dream but have no interest in speculating on when nukes will next be used.

As far as survival goes I have mixed emotions. I have a feeling a lot more people would survive than is popularly believed. It all depends on on how deep the nuclear winter is and I wouldn't trust the models. Most people my age don't want to survive as best I can tell which is another discussion.

Regardless of how we feel about the issue we should push for reductions in nuclear weapons knowing that it will mostly be a symbolic act.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4072
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby teacherman on February 25th, 2017, 10:38 am 

Braininvat » February 24th, 2017, 8:34 pm wrote:IMO there is no rational basis for the making of nuclear weapons. Everyone who fancies themselves having some nuanced and ideologically sophisticated system of justification for them has simply lost touch with the reality of being a human being living on this planet. I never feel more like a sad-eyed alien anthropologist visiting Earth than when I hear people engaged in cool headed calculations and rationale making for having them around in any form. Zero nukes is not an option among many, it is the only goal that any civilized species should consider. Any nation that cannot join in some form of START treaty should be rendered a pariah in the world community, with harsh and unremitting sanctions. I am so very tired of hearing people put ideology before human beings and thinking that makes them look savvy and worldly. You humans, er I mean WE humans, are all going to be obliterated if we don't get together and figure out how to completely eliminate these monstrous devices from the planet. There is no "balanced" view on this, because there is no "balance" of power with nukes. Even a very few can destroy this planet for species like us, so there are no winners, only losers, in any scenario where some crazy person launches a nuke. I have no idea how we've been so lucky as to not have anyone go "rogue" in the past 60-plus years and unleash Hell on Earth. Why the f--k does anyone think that kind of ridiculous luck will continue? This is not a "Left" position or any kind of -ist position, this is a "Holy-crap-I-want-to-keep-living" position. When did we all get some complacent about nukes? Complacent as in the standard "well, of course, MAD assures us that no one would actually USE them, right?" GMAFB.

This is an issue where we SHOULD have emotions, strong emotions, and not pussyfoot around, because this is not some abstract tweaking of currencies or balancing of social priorities or some theoretical benefit of some kind of regulatory policy, this is about the immediate peril in which all sentient life presently lives.

Try saying this sentence and see how it feels when you say it: "Nuclear weapons are absolutely and utterly evil and an affront to everything that makes us human." Does it seem false? Does your clever intellect want to second-guess what is meant by "evil" or perhaps redefine what is meant by human? Do you want to go hide in some lofty intellectual gray area and pretend that makes you smart? Search your souls on this issue. What kind of world do you want your children and grandchildren to inherit?


Very well put, Braini
teacherman
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: 23 Feb 2017


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby Braininvat on February 25th, 2017, 10:54 am 

You can call me BIV, as members generally do, if you want to save a few keystrokes. Thanks. I was just trying to make the point that this is the most visceral of issues. Good responses - I agree with FD that sanctions, as they are presently implemented in the world, may not be that effective. May need instruments of foreign policy that haven't been invented yet. I also wanted to ask Wolf, regarding....

Regardless of how we feel about the issue we should push for reductions in nuclear weapons knowing that it will mostly be a symbolic act.


Not entirely sure what "symbolic" amounts to. If we want to push a car out of the mud, we all get behind and put our backs into it and hope that the resultant force applied is more than symbolism. Maybe there's no political will that's analogous to that? I hope there is.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby vivian maxine on February 25th, 2017, 11:15 am 

Braininvat » February 24th, 2017, 7:34 pm wrote:IMO there is no rational basis for the making of nuclear weapons. Everyone who fancies themselves having some nuanced and ideologically sophisticated system of justification for them has simply lost touch with the reality of being a human being living on this planet. I never feel more like a sad-eyed alien anthropologist visiting Earth than when I hear people engaged in cool headed calculations and rationale making for having them around in any form. Zero nukes is not an option among many, it is the only goal that any civilized species should consider. Any nation that cannot join in some form of START treaty should be rendered a pariah in the world community, with harsh and unremitting sanctions. I am so very tired of hearing people put ideology before human beings and thinking that makes them look savvy and worldly. You humans, er I mean WE humans, are all going to be obliterated if we don't get together and figure out how to completely eliminate these monstrous devices from the planet. There is no "balanced" view on this, because there is no "balance" of power with nukes. Even a very few can destroy this planet for species like us, so there are no winners, only losers, in any scenario where some crazy person launches a nuke. I have no idea how we've been so lucky as to not have anyone go "rogue" in the past 60-plus years and unleash Hell on Earth. Why the f--k does anyone think that kind of ridiculous luck will continue? This is not a "Left" position or any kind of -ist position, this is a "Holy-crap-I-want-to-keep-living" position. When did we all get some complacent about nukes? Complacent as in the standard "well, of course, MAD assures us that no one would actually USE them, right?" GMAFB.

This is an issue where we SHOULD have emotions, strong emotions, and not pussyfoot around, because this is not some abstract tweaking of currencies or balancing of social priorities or some theoretical benefit of some kind of regulatory policy, this is about the immediate peril in which all sentient life presently lives.

Try saying this sentence and see how it feels when you say it: "Nuclear weapons are absolutely and utterly evil and an affront to everything that makes us human." Does it seem false? Does your clever intellect want to second-guess what is meant by "evil" or perhaps redefine what is meant by human? Do you want to go hide in some lofty intellectual gray area and pretend that makes you smart? Search your souls on this issue. What kind of world do you want your children and grandchildren to inherit?



To echo Teacherman, keep saying it. Why are we never able to see the full picture? Why must we strut around like big bullies, showing off our power and bragging about it while we tell those that fear our power that, no, they cannot do likewise? We don't even have our own interests at heart. Don't we know that what we drop on others affects all of us? We all breathe the same air. Nuclear weapons are deadly to all of us. Even the allegedly great technological advancement of nuclear power plants is leaving its deadly accident-marks behind for us to see. Will we never look and learn?
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2698
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby Dave_Oblad on February 25th, 2017, 9:29 pm 

Hi all,

The issue is human nature. If all the Bullies on the block become pacifists, then the smallest kid can become the next Bully.

Anyway, I totally agree with Biv.

One nuke is one too many. But enough to destroy life on Earth ten times over, is a bit of an overkill in my book.

It's a blatant Mexican Standoff and we are just waiting for someone to sneeze. (sorry, no negative inference meant to our southern neighbors)

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3036
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby toucana on February 25th, 2017, 10:47 pm 

dr._strangelove_-_the_war_room.png
Dr Strangelove - War Room

With rather prescient timing I ran a special screening at work yesterday of Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film 'Dr Strangelove: (or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb)'.

It was part of a lecture about the work of Ken Adam, the production designer who created all the iconic war room and B52 bomber interiors used in the film.

Two great anecdotes:

When Ronald Reagan was elected and was being taken on a tour of the Pentagon for the first time in 1980, he asked if he could visit the great triangular war room shown in the film, only to be told it didn't exist.

When Kubrick and his crew were shooting Dr. Strangelove in London, they got a visit from the US Secret Service who wanted to know how they had got hold of the top secret details of the CRM144 nuclear codes receiver in the B52 cockpit instrument panel.

In fact Kubrick and his team had invented the CRM144 out of thin air, and Ken Adam had built the replica B52 cockpit instrument panels out of a plethora of old gauges and switches salvaged from an aviation scrapyard with only a copy of Janes Guide to military aircraft, and his own wartime experience as a Typhoon fighter pilot to guide him.
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 617
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby Forest_Dump on February 25th, 2017, 11:15 pm 

Just so long as there was no fighting in the war room.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8617
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby toucana on February 26th, 2017, 6:32 am 

NevadaAtomTest copy.png
Atomic Test Nevada 1953

wolfhnd wrote:Those of us who grew up in the 50s and 60s were at least partially traumatized as kids by nuclear war preparedness. While many may joke about duck and cover I think everyone who went through that training at a young age may have at least subconscious psychological scars.


Watch the 1982 documentary 'The Atomic Cafe' by Jayne Loader, Kevin Rafferty and Pierce Rafferty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwwTZdQBfO4

It's a black comedy compilation of official US government cold war propaganda and educational clips about civil defence, many of which were shown in US schools in the 1950s.

"Viewed from a safe distance, the atomic bomb is one of the most beautiful sights ever seen by man," a U.S. Army training film declares.

The picture above shows a mother and her son watching a nuclear test in the Nevada desert in 1953 from the comfort of their own sitting room. The distant mushroom clouds, which could be seen from up to 100 miles away from the downtown hotels of LA, became tourist attractions.

St. George, Utah, received the brunt of the fallout of above-ground nuclear testing in the Yucca Flats/Nevada Test Site. Winds routinely carried the fallout of these tests directly through St. George and southern Utah. Marked increases in cancers, such as leukemia, lymphoma, thyroid cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, bone cancer, brain tumors, and gastrointestinal tract cancers, were reported from the mid-1950s through 1980.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 617
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby Braininvat on February 26th, 2017, 10:56 am 

Toucana, I think you mean 100 miles from the hotels of Las Vegas, not downtown LA.

Enjoy your posts on Dr. Strangelove and on the classic Atomic Cafe docu. There's no crazy quite like pro-nuke crazy. There was a satirical Civil Defense poster that was popular in the 60s/70s....will try to put up a jpeg here later. The Yanks here may know the one I mean.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby vivian maxine on February 26th, 2017, 11:19 am 

My brother who was at the Bikini test could tell some stories. Makes me shudder to remember it and that they were given no choice. They knew they didn't want to be there.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2698
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby toucana on February 26th, 2017, 12:27 pm 

NNSA-NSO-787.jpg
Mushroom Cloud Seen From Las Vegas

Braininvat wrote:Toucana, I think you mean 100 miles from the hotels of Las Vegas, not downtown LA.

Yes indeed. Here's an archive photo of a mushroom cloud seen from that location. They actually suffered seismic shocks in Las Vegas caused by the tests, the majority of which were underground tests rather than tower shots or airbursts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 617
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: A nuclear arms race?

Postby teacherman on February 26th, 2017, 4:30 pm 

Hi folks,
Maybe DT was able to avoid the "duck and cover" drills of the 1960's in military school, but I remember them well. I also remember the bomb shelter craze (one of my best friends still has one under his garage). Believe it or not, things have been getting better since I graduated from High School in 1969...

At that time there were something like 30,000 nuclear weapons worldwide. Thanks to the SALT and, more recently, the START agreements (which DT claims were a "bad deal"), there are now less than half that number. Unless #45 f's things up the numbers should continue to go down. Currently, the United States has about 6800 nuclear weapons and Russia has about 7,000. Less than 1,000 are held by 5 other countries.

Here are the most up-to-date figures: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat WARNING - This Chart May Scare the SH-- Out of YOU!!!

To even think of adding even one more nuke to the stockpile is insane....
teacherman
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: 23 Feb 2017



Return to News Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests