U.S. Infatuation With Nukes

[angellous_evangellous]

Check out this canon that fires nuclear shells:

YouTube - Nuclear explosions - Nuclear cannon (15 Kilotons)=

 

[Valjean]

Governments exhibit a natural progression to wards Fascism unless carefully held in check by assiduous public scrutiny.
Cf: Recent US foreign policy....

That's why it's safer to concentrate military power in a democratically controlled international body. with

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't disagree with the realpolitik assessment - all anybody wants is their "fair share" of liebensraum. I'm just casting about for something that would fit within the realm of "just war theory" or some other sort of moral justification. I admit it's precious little as an inhibitor of state-sponsored violence anyway, but imagine what the world can be like without any need to at least develop a cogent moral argument for large-scale violence.

And strategic nukes, like fusion warheads, have as their sole purpose the decimation of entire populations of people.

I don't ascribe to the just war theory.

 

[doppelganger]

I don't ascribe to the just war theory.

. . . "or some other sort of moral justification . . . "

Should there be a limit upon warfare? Of what sort? Insisting only upon those that apply to everyone but me isn't likely to inspire very many people.

 

[Comprehend]

Why does the United States need tactical nuclear weapons?

Why shouldn't the US begin the negotiations for world-wide nuclear disarmament by offering to give up its own in exchange for everyone else doing so?

What do you do when one or more countries want to keep theirs?

Would you use force on a country to take away their nukes?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Should there be a limit upon warfare? Of what sort?

I tend to like the rules of warfare that protect non-combatants and offer conditional surrender of soldiers (room, board, etc).

Insisting only upon those that apply to everyone but me isn't likely to inspire very many people.

It should to a person with the most basic knowledge of history. If your neighbor (eg., fellow countryman) can't be convinced that his resources should be protected, then you're in hot water yourself.

I suspect also that it hasn't taken much effort to convince people that the preservation and aquisition of their own resources precludes that of others. It's the basis of just about every war that I know of.

 

[doppelganger]

What do you do when one or more countries want to keep theirs?

Then everyone keeps them. That's the status quo.

Would you use force on a country to take away their nukes?

How could another country do that without incurring a high risk of a nuclear war?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How could another country do that without incurring a high risk of a nuclear war?

Take away their food and water.

 

[doppelganger]

I tend to like the rules of warfare that protect non-combatants and offer conditional surrender of soldiers (room, board, etc).

Why bother? Maybe because your own non-combatants and surrendered soldiers might be mistreated? If you have the biggest weapons on the block and think you run little risk, then that's not much of a check.

So what are the checks on warfare? Public perception of "justice"? If so, among whom? The warring nation invariably thinks its leaders are justified.

 

[doppelganger]

Take away their food and water.

Does that work? Examples?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why bother? Maybe because your own non-combatants and surrendered soldiers might be mistreated? If you have the biggest weapons on the block and think you run little risk, then that's not much of a check.

So what are the checks on warfare? Public perception of "justice"? If so, among whom? The warring nation invariably thinks its leaders are justified.

Yeah, there's not much of a check at all.

I favor these rules because soldiers who kill armed combatants have a hard enough time as it is adjusting to civilian life. I'm concerned primarily with "our" soldiers recovering from killing "innocents" rather than the innocents themselves.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Does that work? Examples?

North Korea perhaps.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Dopp, I don't think that you're going to find a moral justification for war. In my opinion, it doesn't exist. Perhaps there is a moral justification for defensive measures only (eg., the government's responsibility to protect its people), but never attacks. But it's defensive measures that often provoke attacks and start wars (such as WWI).

 

[Comprehend]

Then everyone keeps them. That's the status quo.



How could another country do that without incurring a high risk of a nuclear war?

That is the way I see it too.

I don't think any of the nuclear countries want to get rid of their nukes and I am pretty sure there are a few that would never give them up.

If that is true, then we are stuck with some countries that will keep nukes regardless of what the US does and so we are better off keeping ours too.

 

[greatcalgarian]

This article discussed in a sensible way:

Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will meet
in May 2005 in New York to review implementation. Since the last review conference
in 2000, the biggest issue to emerge is treaty compliance, particularly Iran’s compliance.
President Bush has remarked that “NPT Parties must take strong action to confront the
threat of noncompliance with the NPT...We cannot allow rogue states that violate their
commitments...to undermine the NPT’s fundamental role in strengthening international
security.” However, some NPT parties are adamant that the United States and other
nuclear weapon states are not complying with their own obligations, namely, to pursue
nuclear disarmament. This report, which will be updated as needed, discusses different
views and issues related to NPT compliance.

http://www.ndu.edu/library/docs/crs/crs_RS22125_26apr05.pdf

 

[Sunstone]

Why does the United States need tactical nuclear weapons?

To show the world who's the best cowboy?

Why shouldn't the US begin the negotiations for world-wide nuclear disarmament by offering to give up its own in exchange for everyone else doing so?

That would be ideal. Not sure if it would work, but it's worth pursuing.

 

[Valjean]

Take away their food and water.

This was tried in Iraq to no avail. Only the powerless masses were affected. The Baathists never missed a meal.

When it was pointed out to Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State, that the policy had resulted in the deaths of 500,000 children for want of food and clean water she replied: "I think this is a very bad choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This was tried in Iraq to no avail. Only the powerless masses were affected. The Baathists never missed a meal.

When it was pointed out to Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State, that the policy had resulted in the deaths of 500,000 children for want of food and clean water she replied: "I think this is a very bad choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."

They didn't have nuclear weapons, and that's why I didn't list Iraq as an example.

Take a look at North Korea. The entire nation was starved, and the government was forced to abandon its nuclear plans.

 

[Valjean]

They didn't have nuclear weapons, and that's why I didn't list Iraq as an example.

Take a look at North Korea. The entire nation was starved, and the government was forced to abandon its nuclear plans.

True enough -- though the Bush administration did its best to make everyone think they were weeks away from rolling one out onto the launchpad...They were treated as a serious military threat for at least a decade prior to the invasion, though.

I was not aware that the N. Korean government made any policy changes in response to its starving masses. It maintained its million-man army and its Potemkin capital. I am not aware that they've abandoned their nuclear arsenal.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

True enough -- though the Bush administration did its best to make everyone think they were weeks away from rolling one out onto the launchpad...They were treated as a serious military threat for at least a decade prior to the invasion, though.

I was not aware that the N. Korean government made any policy changes in response to its starving masses. It maintained its million-man army and its Potemkin capital. I am not aware that they've abandoned their nuclear arsenal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/world/asia/01korea.html

Here's some more:

North Koreans Agree to Disable Nuclear Facilities

By HELENE COOPER
The deal sets a timetable for North Korea to disable all of its nuclear facilities in return for economic aid.
October 4, 2007 World News
North Korea Says U.S. Will Lift Sanctions

By CHOE SANG-HUN
North Korea said that the United States had agreed to lift economic sanctions and remove it from a list of countries accused of sponsoring terrorism.
September 4, 2007 World News
North Korea and U.N. Reach Agreement on Reactor Shutdown

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The U.N.?s nuclear monitoring agency and North Korea have reached an agreement about how the agency will verify the shutdown of the country?s main nuclear reactor.
June 30, 2007 World News