Tosk (7/1/2008)

---

So far there have been (IMS) about 200 nuclear detonation tests performed on Earth.

How soon we forget.

I listed over 2000 tests in the fugitive thread, nearly 37 a year remember?

Personally I think every country should have about a hundred ... or better yet each *person* should have at least one ... then, no matter where he is born, the next time a Harry Truman comes along everyone can play.
We would all feel far safer then would we not???
Well wouldn't we?

Now I lay me down to sleep ... please Oh Great poobah ... please send me a Gort.

[/sarcasm]

Ah yes, two THOUSAND tests; guess memory didn't serve. Probably one of those "the memory is just too terrible so the mind edits it to seem not so bad. . ."

What was that movie where they had the explosives planted inside the skulls, Escape from New York I think? Instead of NUKAUS, I think we should have those as the new and improved MAD instrument. But only elected officials get them. Their counterpart in a rival nation has the controller.

So the "Secretary of State" of Russia might push the button and blow up the SoS of the U.S., but then the Secretary of the Treasury of the U.S. could blow up the Russian SoS's brains. Maybe that would do away with both campaign finance fraud, electioneering rhetoric, AND nuklar proliferation!

Personally, I just don't like theocracies. Haven't thought it through totally, but I'd be okay if it was Brazil, or even Zimbabwe trying to get nukes; its when religious fanatics want doomsday weapons that it worries me.

Locus Coeruleus (7/1/2008)

---

But don't other nations have the same right to use any means necessary to stop them?

Well jerm, whether they have the right or not is not nearly as important as whether they have the means to do so!!!! We have already seen Israel take out nuclear installations of two nations, Iraq and Syria (allegedly). They had the means and they did it. Of course nations have the right to use any means necessary to stop them. That's not the point I was trying to make. I'm on board with this, we must not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, that is a very scary thought. But at the same time, I do not think it silly that Iran is trying to get weapons. Nor do I think they are merely paranoid in trying to do so. That is the point I was arguing against, and I do believe Mr. ...errrr. Dr. Africanus has clarified his position.

Would it be silly for Italy to try to get Nukes? Costa Rica? Canada? Brazil? Norway?

My point, which you do not seem to have fully grasped: NO ONE is EVER going to vie successfully for nuclear parity, let alone dominance against the top two (U.S. & Russia) nor even against the secondary four (U.K., China, France, India). Nor even against Pakistan with its ~60 short range warheads.

By virtue of getting in to the race about 40 years behind, as well as because of relative population and economic size, RNK cannot ever hope to amass a sufficient arsenal to actually represent a strategic deterrent (even to her neighbors) given the huge existing asymmetry vis a vis the existing Nuke Club members. Sure, RNK COULD amass a sufficient arsenal to vaporize RSK or parts of Japan, but at that point, RNK would be toast. With the cat of an unprovoked enemy first strike out of the bag, the allied powers would certainly not be so restrained in their use of their full military capabilities in ending the Korean War once and for all. The same thing applies to Iran: In a world where the dominant powers have thousands of extremely high-tech, long-range, cryptic, and high-quality nukes, it is SILLY to build a half dozen or couple score short-range nukes that are effectively only good as regional deterrence at best.

With the exception of China (and possibly India) the same is true by degrees of the existing 10 club members at each level. Pakistan cannot afford to try to ratchet up to secondary status, and France and U.K. cannot afford to try to ratchet up to primary status.

The social, political, and economic costs of maintaining the largest EFFECTIVE nuclear arsenals are prohibitive. (effective meaning it is either a fullfledged triad system with land, air, and sub-based components in sufficient quantities, and diversities of locations that it can pose a sufficient threat both as a First Strike and a Second Strike deterrent). In order to have the nuclear capacity of the U.S. or Russia, you need to have the social, population, economic, technological, professional resources commensurate with building and maintaining that level of arsenal.

In short, the global nuclear balance of power is in place, and no one is going to jostle by building one or two short-range warheads, because those sorts of weapons are essentially irrelevant to the primary nuclear players who are (i) too far away; (ii) too large in size, pop, and economy; (iii) orders of magnitude more heavily armed; and (iv) orders of magnitude more effectively armed, with "effective" here meaning more advanced weapons systems like multi-warheard delivery systems, cryptic launch systems (mobile launchers, constantly semi-deployed bombers, subs). This is why it is "silly," yes that is right SILLY, for anyone anywhere to be building any more nukes. The order is in place, more nukes are not going to change the order.

In the early 20th century there was an arms race in battleships, with U.S. and U.K. being top dogs, and Japan vying for a role of parity with them. Russia, Germany, France, etc., were in a "secondary" status. That was a silly arms race too, because Japan simply did not have the wherewithal to compete, as WWII showed.

None of us here are huge powerful powerlifter types. Would it be wise or "not-Silly" for any of us to go into Gold's Gym, Los Angelos and go up to the biggest guys in there and say "I'm movin' up in the world! You're goin' DOWN!" and then start a frantic workout regimen in efforts to catch up with the top dogs massiveness? That too would be silly.

Italy, Canada, Brazil, Norway, Costa Rica, have no real use for nukes. They get along with their neighbors, and the get along with the world police(men) (U.S. and Russia, followed by France, U.K., China, India), and they have nothing to fear from the semi-powerful "rogue" Nuke states (Pakistan, RNK, Israel). Lets say Nicaragua starts buddying up to China or Russia. Costa Rica can always come crying to the U.S. and her teammates (France, U.K., ~India) to apply pressure. Same thing is true if say Iceland got belligerent against Canada, or if Peru gets cheeky with Brazil, or Denmark gets uppity against Norway.

In sum, there is a perfectly fine balance of power in the world today. It is silly to try to challenge this balance by building silly-arse piddly little short-range nuclear weapons, which really only amount to scare tactics & internal propaganda to maintain faith among the peeps in otherwise shaky social orders and to help a regime with a tenuous grip on power to stay in control.

Can't we compete through CIVILIZED means such as: The Olympics, YouTube, Game Forum Sites, Penthouse "Girls of the World" editions, etc.!?!

I CHALLENGE Ahjimajdinadijadai! Your women must be really FUGLY if you insist on keeping them so covered up all the time! SHOW US! that you are a beautiful civilized people! Give us the Iranian issue of the Penthouse Girls of the World Annual Series and cut with the BS "Big Missile" flopping . . .