Iran, North Korea get a new partner

[SteveThaiBinh]

The logic behind it is to develop nuclear devices whose power is closer to regular ordnance...

So why not use regular ordnance?

Simply because "it's a nuke!" is not good enough a reason to ban it, that is illogic.  What's important is the actual yield of the bomb and the side effects it may have.

Radiation and environmental damage would surely be more severe with a nuclear weapon than a regular weapon of comparable yield.

 

At the moment, as far as I can tell, the world has a clear, simple and almost universally agreed view: if you use nuclear weapons first in any conflict, you are an international pariah from that moment until your government is toppled and your leaders tried for crimes against humanity. Why muddy the waters?

[Commissar]

There is no way to win a conventional war against China.

I'd like to see the evidence you have to back that statement. I think that lately China's military power is being grossly overrated. Wait, shouldn't this go in the other thread? "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, me too.

 

I've lost all faith in our intelligence services. We vastly overestimated the USSR's capability, we kind of screwed the pooch on Iraq...

 

I no longer give us the benefit of the doubt.

[metadigital]

There is no way to win a conventional war against China.

I'd like to see the evidence you have to back that statement. I think that lately China's military power is being grossly overrated. Wait, shouldn't this go in the other thread? "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, depends on semantics to a point, but I wouldn't fancy anyone trying to invade China.

 

Maybe India.

 

You would have to use nukes, there aren't enough bullets. (Very technical, but take my word for it.")

...

I've lost all faith in our intelligence services.  We vastly overestimated the USSR's capability, we kind of screwed the pooch on Iraq...

 

I no longer give us the benefit of the doubt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's got nothing to do with secrets and everything to do with numbers. They have more. A lot more.

[Commissar]

There is no way to win a conventional war against China.

I'd like to see the evidence you have to back that statement. I think that lately China's military power is being grossly overrated. Wait, shouldn't this go in the other thread? "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, depends on semantics to a point, but I wouldn't fancy anyone trying to invade China.

 

Maybe India.

 

You would have to use nukes, there aren't enough bullets. (Very technical, but take my word for it.")

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nor would I fancy anyone trying to invade us. We've got the best blue-water navy in town.

[Commissar]

They may have more, in other words, but they have no way of getting them anywhere near us.

[metadigital]

Ah, what about Chinatown? There's already a big hole in the US defence network ...

[Judge Hades]

Personally I think the world would be a lot better off with everyone who has nukes fire them off at each other and blanket the world in radiation. Lets leave this planet to the roaches.

[213374U]

Okay. You go first.

[Darth Launch]

I have the greatest weapon of all!

 

DL

[Cantousent]

The point isn't that we should get nukes. The point is that we have them. That we have them is no reason that others should get them. In fact, if we did not have them, others would probably say we should not get them. heh, untangle all that, I dare you.

 

We don't have nukes because we deserve them. We have nukes because we made them. Having made them, it makes sense that we don't want others to get them.

 

...And mutually assured destruction only works if the other fellow doesn't want to see his wife and children nuked. If he doesn't care, then the idea of mutually assured destruction only assures us that we will mutually destroy each other.

[WinterSun]

The scary thing about Islamic countries having nukes is that eventually they can be made small enough to be used by suicide bombers.I don't thinkit's unreasonable for Western governments to try and prevent this.

[Reveilled]

I found this timeline of proliferation thingy, if anyone's interested.

[metadigital]

The point isn't that we should get nukes.  The point is that we have them.  That we have them is no reason that others should get them.  In fact, if we did not have them, others would probably say we should not get them.  heh, untangle all that, I dare you.

 

We don't have nukes because we deserve them.  We have nukes because we made them.  Having made them, it makes sense that we don't want others to get them.

 

...And mutually assured destruction only works if the other fellow doesn't want to see his wife and children nuked.  If he doesn't care, then the idea of mutually assured destruction only assures us that we will mutually destroy each other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The funny thing is that nuclear weapons are not the most dangerous weapon that all the UNSC members have.

 

They all have enough biological agents to kill everyone. Including the US.

[metadigital]

I found this timeline of proliferation thingy, if anyone's interested.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think Canada should demonstrate an act of good will and disarm its nuclear arsenal.

 

... Canada's status as a nuclear state depends mostly on the definition. Canada cooperated extensively with the United States in the development and manufacture of nuclear weapons, and deployed hundreds of American warheads, but did not have an independent program. ...

[213374U]

I found this timeline of proliferation thingy, if anyone's interested.

On a side note, that's an excellent statistics page.

[Calax]

I like the Daily shows version of the "coalition" better. I can't remeber exactly waht it was but it was somthing like "Morroco sends 30 dancing ladies, and The kingdom of (filler country) sends 110 running monkeys."

 

I think we should make Ethnikastan too (another onion concept.)

[metadigital]

cool

[EnderAndrew]

You can't win any war with conventional nukes.

 

And you can win a war with China if you have the right allies.

 

If we didn't have places to set up air bases, supply lines, or any support we'd be dead. If we had those, we have the edge in technology that individual soldiers suited up wouldn't matter so much.

 

We wouldn't put any soldiers on the ground (other than Force Recon) until we bombed the place silly.

 

We are handling Iraq rather poorly right now because we can't police millions of people. The Army isn't trained for that. But we have proven that we can quickly demolish any communications and air support systems in a country to the point where they can make no effort to defend themselves.

 

And given the armor on the M1 Abrams, there are few things that can touch them. I've even seen an M1 take a direct shot from another M1. You don't want to mess with our tanks.

 

It would be a matter of timing. If we decided to invade China and got the jump, then I'd like our chances.

[Atreides]

I wonder if the UN would approve its countries sending in nukes at the pariah.

 

Even if you eventually win the war, a first volley of say a dozen nukes to close countries' metropolises will be devastating. I heard NK's not too fond of Japan.

[EnderAndrew]

Launching conventional nukes opens the door to MAD. No one wins, and I don't think the UN would ever approve that under any circumstances. Even if the super powers pushed for it, the larger body of nations would be up in arms.

[Atreides]

I think it's likelier that there will be groups of countries instead of one or two acting alone. The whole thing with everyone should have one thing is dangerous.

[Drakron]

...  I heard NK's not too fond of Japan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No wonder considering Japan colonization efforts in Korea, I dont think Japan is much popular even in South Korea or China (another country that known too well Japanese colonialism and imperialism).

[julianw]

...  I heard NK's not too fond of Japan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No wonder considering Japan colonization efforts in Korea, I dont think Japan is much popular even in South Korea or China (another country that known too well Japanese colonialism and imperialism).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's some of Japanese government's policies that SK and China oppose, not the people.

 

Chinese government also declared never to use nuclear weapons unless being attacked with them first.

 

If the next nuclear holocaust does occur, it's more likely between Pakistan and India. They seem to enjoy detonating nuclear weapons near each other's borders too much already.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The scary thing about Islamic countries having nukes is that eventually they can be made small enough to be used by suicide bombers.I don't thinkit's unreasonable for Western governments to try and prevent this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So far the only Islamic government with nuclear weapons is Pakistan's, and I don't think it'll be working on a terrorist-friendly portable version to hand out to the extremists, as it has as much reason to fear them as we do.

 

Terrorists are probably working on such devices, and corrupt government scientists could be co-operating with them, but the government itself is probably working hard to stop that happening. I'd guess that if Iran's government developed nuclear weapons too (not its stated aim) it would similarly not put the weapons into the hands of unstable terrorist organisations. The relationship between terrorists and the states that support them is complex, but the states are always careful to keep the balance of power in their own favour.

 

The five 'official' nuclear powers would have more success enforcing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if they lived up to their own commitments by the same treaty and worked towards complete nuclear disarmament.

[metadigital]

You can't win any war with conventional nukes.

 

And you can win a war with China if you have the right allies.

 

If we didn't have places to set up air bases, supply lines, or any support we'd be dead.  If we had those, we have the edge in technology that individual soldiers suited up wouldn't matter so much.

 

We wouldn't put any soldiers on the ground (other than Force Recon) until we bombed the place silly.

 

We are handling Iraq rather poorly right now because we can't police millions of people.  The Army isn't trained for that.  But we have proven that we can quickly demolish any communications and air support systems in a country to the point where they can make no effort to defend themselves.

 

And given the armor on the M1 Abrams, there are few things that can touch them.  I've even seen an M1 take a direct shot from another M1.  You don't want to mess with our tanks.

 

It would be a matter of timing.  If we decided to invade China and got the jump, then I'd like our chances.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't remember the details off-hand, but the Chinese have a new handy-dandy tank that (iirc) beats the stats on the Abrams. Not sure how many they've got, though.

 

Also, I know China has equipt their armed forces (at least in part) with lasers to permanently blind opponents.

 

I suspect, though, that the powers-that-be would be more interested in softening up a target like China with biological warfare, first. (Who know, maybe that's what this avian flu is ... )

 

If 90% of a population is either dead or too sick to fight, it makes the warfare a lot easier. (The Daleks did it to the Earthlings in 2150.)

...  I heard NK's not too fond of Japan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No wonder considering Japan colonization efforts in Korea, I dont think Japan is much popular even in South Korea or China (another country that known too well Japanese colonialism and imperialism).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... Not to mention they changed how to spell Corea ...