Nuclear weapons

[Bruce]

Do you get the feeling that someday very soon, you are going to wake up and read the headlines, "Nuclear weapon detonated in the Middle East!".

I'm pretty sure that Iran has at least one. Nuclear weapons are not difficult to make. The hardest part of making a nuclear weapon is preventing it from detonating when you DON'T want it to go off.

If you have a bunch of suicide bombers at your disposal, you don't have to worry about any of that. It's simply a matter of bringing enough enriched uranium atoms in close proximity to one another. If your suicide bomber manages to reach his intended target before collapsing from radiation sickness, he could literally have a chunk of uranium in one pocket and a chunk in the other, and then smack them together when the time comes.



Ok, I'm not a nuclear weapons expert so it may not be that simple, but I know enough about nuclear energy to know that starting a nuclear chain reaction is not all that difficult.

[Azure]

So why hasn't it happened yet? Don't you think that Iran would instantly strike is Israel if they had nuclear weapons?

I fully expect it yes, but I expect Israel to be dropping it, not Iran. I think its about high time too.

[clarsct]

DO you realize what that would do to the price of GAS?!!

We must stop this at all costs....

[gumboot]

To be honest, I'm not surprised that no state has detonated a nuclear weapon since WW2. Doing so would basically mean the end of your state... I mean... who would vote against an invasion in the UN? And a single nuke, or even an arsenal of nukes can't actually knock out a country.

What is a little more surprising is that no "renegades" have set one off. By this I mean terrorists. Pre-9/11 I would have said none were willing to inflict that level of destruction. Now I think some would not even hesitate. Thankfully none have got a hold of any yet...

But the more countries there are that have nukes, the greater the risk that someone who would use them gets hold of them. Unless something changes dramatically, I think a nuclear terrorist attack is a matter of "when?" and "where?", not "if". And that is a scary thought.

I also think that some of the countries that are currently being hounded (like Iran and N.Korea) are excellent candidates for supplying terrorists with a nuke (whether intentionally or simply through poor security/corruption etc)

-Andrew

EDT. That should be "no state has detoned a nuclear weapon against an enemy since WW2"

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually, refining uranium to the point where you can make a bomb out of it is still a long and difficult process.

Mind you an awful lot of plutonium apparently "went missing" after the fall of the USSR. It's a fairly good bet a lot of it ended up in the hands of nations that want to be nuclear powers, and Bruce is right about how easy it is to make a nuclear weapon if someone has enriched the fissile material for you.

On the other hand, I read somewhere that Osama bin Laden contemplated crashing planes into nuclear power stations instead of economic and military targets of symbolic importance, and rejected the idea as "too extreme". An actual nuclear bomb would be more extreme by far. So even the people we usually see presented to us as utter lunatics aren't too keen on going that far.

[The Don]

So why hasn't it happened yet? Don't you think that Iran would instantly strike is Israel if they had nuclear weapons?.
No, I think they would posture for a long time before even considering such a thing. After all, the repercussions would be terrible for them.
I fully expect it yes, but I expect Israel to be dropping it, not Iran. I think its about high time too.
It always alarms me when someone seems to be in favour of a nuclear strike. I would be concerned that there would be ramifications far beyond what we currently envisage.

For example, if the Muslim world already hates the West (and it's be very easy to portray Israel as a stooge of the West to the faithful following a nuclear attack on an Isalmic country) then I would imagine a series of terrorist attacks in all major cities in the West.

One problem about having a very effective military is that the country that owns it could become trigger happy.

[Bruce]

Actually, refining uranium to the point where you can make a bomb out of it is still a long and difficult process.

All you need is a centrifuge, a Geiger counter, and at least one graduate student. :rolleyes:

[Bikewer]

Producing a reliable fission reaction isn't that easy, the critical mass of fissionable material must be "assembled" (as the nuclear engineers euphemize) rather quickly.

The "little boy" bomb dropped on Hiroshima was of the "gun" design, which fires part of the critical mass into the rest by means of high explosive. It worked, but did not produce the "yield" (another euphemism) of the "fat man" implosion bomb. This is now effectively the standard design, where a sphere of plutonium is crushed by specially-shaped charges around it's periphery.
The expertise for doing all this is available technology, obtaining a critical mass of fissionable material and machining it into the very-precise shape needed is difficult.

[Mephisto]

It always alarms me when someone seems to be in favour of a nuclear strike. I would be concerned that there would be ramifications far beyond what we currently envisage.

It alarms me too, especially if you consider that the jump between advocating the use of a nuclear weapon and advocating the use on schools and residential areas for the purpose of elminating future terrorists isn't exactly a chasm. :(

[Kevin_Lowe]

All you need is a centrifuge, a Geiger counter, and at least one graduate student. :rolleyes:

My understanding is that with just one centrifuge it would take, in layperson's terms, bloody forever.

The difference in mass between U-235 and U-238 (if I recall correctly) is so slight that you need enormous amounts of uranium being furiously centrifuged for a very long time to get enough weapons-grade material to do anything explosive with.

[Bruce]

My understanding is that with just one centrifuge it would take, in layperson's terms, bloody forever.


Thus the graduate student.

Or prisoner. Same thing.

[Kerberos]

It alarms me too, especially if you consider that the jump between advocating the use of a nuclear weapon and advocating the use on schools and residential areas for the purpose of elminating future terrorists isn't exactly a chasm. :(
Particuarly not in this case since in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59875&page=) our friend advocates that Israel engages in the lagest genocide in the world by well over an order of magnitude. Though whether this interesting position is the result of trolling or a failure to take antopsychotic medication I don't know.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Thus the graduate student.

Or prisoner. Same thing.

It took the Manhatten Project two years or so to scrape together enough U-235 for one relatively measly atomic bomb, and they had more than one graduate student on board, plus a whole lot of centrifuges and cyclotrons.

[Dcdrac]

It took the Manhatten Project two years or so to scrape together enough U-235 for one relatively measly atomic bomb, and they had more than one graduate student on board, plus a whole lot of centrifuges and cyclotrons.

It is heer fantasy that nuclear weapons grade material can be whipped up in a garage with a single cyclotron and centifuge, still it makes great fiction.

[shemp]

DO you realize what that would do to the price of GAS?!!

We must stop this at all costs....

It would also drive up the price of nuclear weapons. Note to self: stock up today.

[Azure]

No, I think they would posture for a long time before even considering such a thing. After all, the repercussions would be terrible for them.

They are obviously suicidal anyways, why would a nuclear strike stop them?

It always alarms me when someone seems to be in favour of a nuclear strike. I would be concerned that there would be ramifications far beyond what we currently envisage.

For example, if the Muslim world already hates the West (and it's be very easy to portray Israel as a stooge of the West to the faithful following a nuclear attack on an Isalmic country) then I would imagine a series of terrorist attacks in all major cities in the West.

One problem about having a very effective military is that the country that owns it could become trigger happy.

And you see a different solution to the problem outside of a nuclear attack? Unless Syria and Iran are both taken out now, we will eventually see nuclear war. I prefer we drop it on them first.

[The Don]

They are obviously suicidal anyways, why would a nuclear strike stop them?.
Why obviuously ?

An obviously suicidal regime would launch an all-out terrorist attack against the US or perhaps an airstrike against Israel. I see no evidence of either.
And you see a different solution to the problem outside of a nuclear attack? Unless Syria and Iran are both taken out now, we will eventually see nuclear war. I prefer we drop it on them first.
I'm sure you do. I would prefer to limit the use of nuclear weapons. The action of first resort is not to nuke 'em.

I hope that in years to come we can look back at many years of not using nuclear weapons against Muslim countries in the same way we didn't use them against the Warsaw Pact.

[Azure]

Why obviuously ?

An obviously suicidal regime would launch an all-out terrorist attack against the US or perhaps an airstrike against Israel. I see no evidence of either.

I think we all realize what part Iran is playing in the Israel/Lebanon conflict. Wouldn't you call that suicidal? Wouldn't you call 90% of the terrorists out there suicidal, considering that they're the ones who walk into a market place and blow themselves up.

I'm sure you do. I would prefer to limit the use of nuclear weapons. The action of first resort is not to nuke 'em.

I hope that in years to come we can look back at many years of not using nuclear weapons against Muslim countries in the same way we didn't use them against the Warsaw Pact.

If I had the utmost certainty that Iran or NK, or some other terrorist group would never launch nuclear weapons against the free world, I would agree to limit the use of nuclear weapons.

I really don't see that happening. The idea of MAD went along way in stopping nuclear war from breaking out with the Warsaw Pact. Sadly, that theory cannot and will not apply to Muslim extremists.

[Art Vandelay]

The reason nuclear bombs are more than just putting together two lumps of uranium is that a true nuclear explosion requires significantly more than the critical mass. If two lumps are put together, then once it reaches critical mass, there will be an explosion that pushes the pieces apart, but only a small part of the uranium will fission, because it's only slightly above critical mass. To get the full yield, you need to get the lumps to stay together long enough for all the uranium to fission.

[IIRichard]

As it happens, I have some experience with nuclear weapons. What follows is, however, all in the public domain.

A gun type weapon, where two subcritical masses of Uranium 235 are brought together by low explosives, is relatively easy to engineer as the technology is basically field artillery. I believe that in most designs, both peices are shot towards each other.

The problem is the need for highly enriched uranium, that is mostly U235 not U238. The centrifuge method uses uranium hexaflouride so the differ4ence in maas between the two molecules is tiny and the centrifuges are set up in cascades with the slightly enriched product being feedstock for the next cetrifuge and the, realatively unenriched going back to the first centrifuge.

This process can take years. In 1945, the US had three bombs, one uranium gun type and two plutonium implosion types. Gives you some idea of the time inolved.

Plutonium bombs cannot use the gun type arrangement because it simply isn't possible, or at least practical, to bring the almost critical parts together fast enough that there will be a significant yield. Plutonium bombs use the implosion method of increasing the density past criticality by an explosive shock wave. This requires very sophisticated engineering and extremely precise fabrication of the explosive "lenses". Merely surounding a plutonium pit with high explosive doesn't work.

Besides, manufacturing plutonium and handling it require a large sophisticated industrial base. Plutonium can be made by the intense neutron ombardment of a nuclear reactor. It must then be separated chemicaly from the spen fuel rods. This is easier than enriching uranium but is not a trivial problem.

I do have a guess. My guess is that the nuclear material necessary for a bomb is not now in the hands of a terrorist group. If it were, they'd have sold it for chemical and biological weapons or a lot of conventinal ones. Refined plutonium and enriched uranium are literally woth their weight in gold and diamonds.

IIRichard

[Tony]

Do you get the feeling that someday very soon, you are going to wake up and read the headlines, "Nuclear weapon detonated in the Middle East!".


I've had that thought a few times. The frightening question is "How will the global powers align after such an event"?

[Regnad Kcin]

What about nuculer weapons, huh? What about them?

[Tony]

Don't you think that Iran would instantly strike is Israel if they had nuclear weapons?

Not necessarily. Iran could bide their time and wait for a moment of complacency or weakness. Or wait for US support for Israel to dry-up. There are many strategic reasons for Iran not to drop a nuke as soon as they get one.

I fully expect it yes, but I expect Israel to be dropping it, not Iran. I think its about high time too.

Why would you want Israel to commit such a political suicide? That would be the dumbest thing they could do. It would only re-enforce the anti-jew/anti-israel propaganda and give ammunition to anti-semites the world over.

[Azure]

Why would you want Israel to commit such a political suicide? That would be the dumbest thing they could do. It would only re-enforce the anti-jew/anti-israel propaganda and give ammunition to anti-semites the world over.

Well considering the anti-semitism that has arisen from this recent conflict, wouldn't Israel now be already commiting political suicide? Why should they give a crap what the rest of the world thinks?

As long as the US is firm in their support, as is Canada and Australia, Israel is set.

France, Germany and Russia and go cry me a freakin' river. I don't want to hear their pathetic moaning anymore.

[geni]

I'm pretty sure that Iran has at least one. Nuclear weapons are not difficult to make. The hardest part of making a nuclear weapon is preventing it from detonating when you DON'T want it to go off.

Wrong that is pretty easy. For uranium the problem is makeing the material. For plutonium the problem is setting it off properly


If you have a bunch of suicide bombers at your disposal, you don't have to worry about any of that. It's simply a matter of bringing enough enriched uranium atoms in close proximity to one another.

That wont work. To start with the critical mass of uranium is to high to fit it in your pockets. Secondly the process you describe would almost certianly result in fizzel rather than a proper nuclear explosion

[geni]

I do have a guess. My guess is that the nuclear material necessary for a bomb is not now in the hands of a terrorist group. If it were, they'd have sold it for chemical and biological weapons or a lot of conventinal ones. Refined plutonium and enriched uranium are literally woth their weight in gold and diamonds.

IIRichard

Not really. France has several tonnes of refined plutonium hanging around. For accounting perposes it ahs zero value since no one they would be prepared to sell it too wants to buy it

[geni]

Thus the graduate student.

Or prisoner. Same thing.

Uranium hexafluoride is a pain to work with. You would need chemists with experence of working with insanely corrosive gasses.

[Elind]

... I mean... who would vote against an invasion in the UN? ......

:(

Are you sure you might not want to reconsider that comment?

Anyone want to take bets on who would, even assuming nobody could deny they did it?

[The Don]

I think we all realize what part Iran is playing in the Israel/Lebanon conflict. Wouldn't you call that suicidal? Wouldn't you call 90% of the terrorists out there suicidal, considering that they're the ones who walk into a market place and blow themselves up.
No, only a very small percentage of terrorists are suicide bombers.

In the context you used it, I also took your comment to mean that the Iranian government was suicidal and would undertake a nuclear first strike. I've not seen any evidence of the Iranian state being that stupid.

They are very good at sabre rattling but from what I've seen, they're all bark and no bite.
If I had the utmost certainty that Iran or NK, or some other terrorist group would never launch nuclear weapons against the free world, I would agree to limit the use of nuclear weapons.

I really don't see that happening. The idea of MAD went along way in stopping nuclear war from breaking out with the Warsaw Pact. Sadly, that theory cannot and will not apply to Muslim extremists.
You are advocating a first use and are impling that this first use should be soon. Dropping nuclear weapons as a way to promote world peace ignores the likely consequences

[Tony]

Well considering the anti-semitism that has arisen from this recent conflict, wouldn't Israel now be already commiting political suicide?

No.

Why should they give a crap what the rest of the world thinks?

Because the world united against them could wipe them off the planet.

As long as the US is firm in their support, as is Canada and Australia, Israel is set.

Right, as long as.

France, Germany and Russia and go cry me a freakin' river. I don't want to hear their pathetic moaning anymore.

And you other people want to hear your's?

[gumboot]

:(

Are you sure you might not want to reconsider that comment?

Anyone want to take bets on who would, even assuming nobody could deny they did it?


No, I think if a country nuked another country, and if it was obvious they did it, the UN would be quite happy to allow the victim and their friends to respond in force.

At the very least the UN would be unanimous in their silence.

-Andrew

[Kerberos]

No, I think if a country nuked another country, and if it was obvious they did it, the UN would be quite happy to allow the victim and their friends to respond in force.

At the very least the UN would be unanimous in their silence.

-Andrew
Besides you don't need UN authoritasation for selfdefence. You might seek it anyways for political reasons or to prevent squables about what is and isn't selfdefence and in case of a nuclear attack you would almost certainly get it. It is howevers not a violation of international law in any shape or form to defend yourself without asking the UN first.

[gumboot]

Besides you don't need UN authoritasation for selfdefence. You might seek it anyways for political reasons or to prevent squables about what is and isn't selfdefence and in case of a nuclear attack you would almost certainly get it. It is howevers not a violation of international law in any shape or form to defend yourself without asking the UN first.


Technically, under the UN Charter, the UN not only has to allow it, ALL United Nations member states HAVE to provide military support (I think the specific text is a squadron of attack aircraft or something, which is funny because New Zealand disbanded their attack aircraft 5 years ago...).

-Andrew

[mrfreeze]

I have to ask, if let's say NK decided to commit international suicide by mod and launch a nuke which struck California (since last I read this was about as far as their missles could reach) how screwed would the rest of us be? In other words, what would be the range of the fallout? I keep having these horrible images of radiation enveloping the whole country and us all dying horrible deaths, but I would assume that is unrealistic. Do current nukes pose more of a threat in that regard than say the A bombs we dropped on Japan?

[geni]

I have to ask, if let's say NK decided to commit international suicide by mod and launch a nuke which struck California (since last I read this was about as far as their missles could reach) how screwed would the rest of us be?

Zilch. Far larger weapons have been detonated on US soil


In other words, what would be the range of the fallout? I keep having these horrible images of radiation enveloping the whole country and us all dying horrible deaths, but I would assume that is unrealistic. Do current nukes pose more of a threat in that regard than say the A bombs we dropped on Japan?

Some do but not the ones NK likely has.

[gumboot]

I keep having these horrible images of radiation enveloping the whole country and us all dying horrible deaths, but I would assume that is unrealistic. Do current nukes pose more of a threat in that regard than say the A bombs we dropped on Japan?


Funnily enough, I remember recently reading the findings of a study done on survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Although small numbers of mutations occured in children that were born shortly after the attacks, the rates of cancer in these two cities, in the expanse of 60 years after the attacks is actually slightly LOWER than average for the country.

Even taking into account all people who died as a result of radiation sickness or cancer from the atomic blasts against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a single night of firestorm bombing against Tokyo killed more people.

In essence, though the study is not absolute (the researchers pointed out that the grandchildren of survivors have not yet reached middle age) indicators so far are that long term impact of nuclear fallout is a myth. (Similar results were found for assessment of toxins in the environment).

As I often like to point out, the likely impact of nuclear weapons has long been exaggerated. The 181AD Taupo volcanic eruption was roughly equivelant to 1000-2000 Megatons TNT. It did not even extinguish life in New Zealand, let alone the region (despite being heard in China, turning the sky red around the world, causing a global drop in temperature for years, and depositing a distinct layer of ash everywhere). By comparison, the entire world's nuclear arsenal is estimated at a yield of about 5000 Mega Tons. Obviously both of these figures are rough estimates, but it gives you an idea of comparison.

(And it should be pointed out the 181AD eruption certainly wasn't even Taupo's biggest, let alone the biggest the world has ever seen - by comparison the Yellowstone eruptions are rated at hundreds of thousands of megatons, and are of the same explosive index as the Taupo eruption about 26,000 years ago).

-Andrew

[Azure]

No, only a very small percentage of terrorists are suicide bombers.

In the context you used it, I also took your comment to mean that the Iranian government was suicidal and would undertake a nuclear first strike. I've not seen any evidence of the Iranian state being that stupid.

They are very good at sabre rattling but from what I've seen, they're all bark and no bite.

Well I sure hope so, but reading the news, it makes you wondering A)what they are thinking saying Israel can't hurt them and B) saying they want to annex Israel.

You are advocating a first use and are impling that this first use should be soon. Dropping nuclear weapons as a way to promote world peace ignores the likely consequences

I guess you'll be promoting your whacked up theory of world peace all the way till doomsday, eh?

Its never going to happen.

Not that I wouldn't like it to happen, but we're never going to get rid of anti-Western Muslims that would give their lives to kill us, especially if we have people constantly undermining the effort to promote peace and security in the ME.

[Kerberos]

Technically, under the UN Charter, the UN not only has to allow it
Where do you get that from? Don't tell me that you interpret "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." to mean "but if somebody else breaks this law, you should stand quite still and let him pound you into the ground, untill such time as the UN authorises you to defend yourself"

ALL United Nations member states HAVE to provide military support (I think the specific text is a squadron of attack aircraft or something, which is funny because New Zealand disbanded their attack aircraft 5 years ago...).

-Andrew
All countries are legally obligated to help in the actions mandated by the SC, but I very much doubt that this help is specified or limited to one squadron of airplanes.

[Elind]

No, I think if a country nuked another country, and if it was obvious they did it, the UN would be quite happy to allow the victim and their friends to respond in force.

At the very least the UN would be unanimous in their silence.

-Andrew
The UN is never unanimous in silence and never will be unanimous in anything, assuming we are talking of the general council, let alone the vestigial cold war security council (China is still commie, and Russia is pretend not, didn't you know?). What does evidence have anything to do with it?

Any such event (nuclear) will be denied by all the obvious culprits and any retaliation will be condemned by all the usual culprits, and all the usual sheep will buy whatever they have been told.

The only rational result will be that every one of the deniers will be be threatened with the same, but unfortunately that includes China and Russia these days.

Think they will be smart enough to change course? I don't know.

PS ever think what kind of world we would live in if China, Russia and, what the hell, throw in India and Pakistan would actually agree on putting petty dictators in their place? (Hey, I leave out France and Germany deliberately).


The Chinese are the doodoo's of the world these days in my opinion. They created N Korea, they protect and help Iran, they excuse Syria, then encourage Chavez, they love African dictators with mines, they make cheap Rolexes and they fill my mailbox (filtered) with imbecilic spam.

I try to find shirts I can afford that say anything other than made in China. Honest.

Russians next week. Stay tuned.

[Rob Lister]

The UN is never unanimous in silence and never will be unanimous in anything, assuming we are talking of the general council, let alone the vestigial cold war security council (China is still commie, and Russia is pretend not, didn't you know?). What does evidence have anything to do with it?

Any such event (nuclear) will be denied by all the obvious culprits and any retaliation will be condemned by all the usual culprits, and all the usual sheep will buy whatever they have been told.

The only rational result will be that every one of the deniers will be be threatened with the same, but unfortunately that includes China and Russia these days.

Think they will be smart enough to change course? I don't know.

PS ever think what kind of world we would live in if China, Russia and, what the hell, throw in India and Pakistan would actually agree on putting petty dictators in their place? (Hey, I leave out France and Germany deliberately).


The Chinese are the doodoo's of the world these days in my opinion. They created N Korea, they protect and help Iran, they excuse Syria, then encourage Chavez, they love African dictators with mines, they make cheap Rolexes and they fill my mailbox (filtered) with imbecilic spam.

I try to find shirts I can afford that say anything other than made in China. Honest.

Russians next week. Stay tuned.


As soon as the first nuke drops, regardless of who drops it, the UN will cease to even exist in theory, as it only does now.

Everyone will choose their own sides (as they do now) but no longer pay them the lip service they do currently.

The UN must be the most counterproductive organization every to exist. Any falling nuke will pull that curtain back and expose it for what it really is.

[Kevin_Lowe]

The UN is never unanimous in silence and never will be unanimous in anything, assuming we are talking of the general council, let alone the vestigial cold war security council (China is still commie, and Russia is pretend not, didn't you know?). What does evidence have anything to do with it?

Any such event (nuclear) will be denied by all the obvious culprits and any retaliation will be condemned by all the usual culprits, and all the usual sheep will buy whatever they have been told.

The only rational result will be that every one of the deniers will be be threatened with the same, but unfortunately that includes China and Russia these days.

Think they will be smart enough to change course? I don't know.

Despite the "they're all crazy!" rhetoric popular in the USA, the world has managed to steer a course around the use of nuclear weapons so far. I wouldn't get too distracted by your local political rhetoric. Even the worst of the world's political leaders are smart the way Dilbert's boss is - they are smart enough to get to the top and stay there despite their other limitations. Launching nuclear weapons is not a way to stay in power. Having them and looking like you might, on the other hand, very much is.

If it did happen though, do you remember 9/11? That was small potatoes compared to a nuclear attack, and for a brief moment the vast majority of the world was supporting the USA and willing to assist in getting the people responsible. The Bush administration managed to micturate that goodwill away in short order, but a nuclear attack against a civilian target would probably create even greater short-term unity and support for the victims.


PS ever think what kind of world we would live in if China, Russia and, what the hell, throw in India and Pakistan would actually agree on putting petty dictators in their place? (Hey, I leave out France and Germany deliberately).


Heck, imagine what kind of world we would live in if the USA would actually put petty thugs like the rulers of Kuwait in their place, since they hold the whip hand over them already anyway.

The current US administration is interested in "putting petty dictators in their place" if and only if it happens to coincide with their personal fantasies of using the world as their Risk board.


The Chinese are the doodoo's of the world these days in my opinion. They created N Korea, they protect and help Iran, they excuse Syria, then encourage Chavez, they love African dictators with mines, they make cheap Rolexes and they fill my mailbox (filtered) with imbecilic spam.

The USA got into bed with equally objectionable regimes during the Cold War, for pretty much the same reasons. China is looking after itself first, and going out of their way to stop their rivals getting too powerful or adventurous.

North Korea is the anus of the world, but it's where China stopped a recent round of US expansion-by-proxy. You can't exactly blame them for wanting that barrier to stay where it is.

[Elind]

As soon as the first nuke drops, regardless of who drops it, the UN will cease to even exist in theory, as it only does now.

Everyone will choose their own sides (as they do now) but no longer pay them the lip service they do currently.

The UN must be the most counterproductive organization every to exist. Any falling nuke will pull that curtain back and expose it for what it really is.

Sadly, you are probably right, yet the nagging thought remains; what else is left except a rule by the strongest, if limited?

I suppose I'd rather be here than there:(

[Elind]

Despite the "they're all crazy!" rhetoric popular in the USA, the world has managed to steer a course around the use of nuclear weapons so far. I wouldn't get too distracted by your local political rhetoric. Even the worst of the world's political leaders are smart the way Dilbert's boss is - they are smart enough to get to the top and stay there despite their other limitations. Launching nuclear weapons is not a way to stay in power. Having them and looking like you might, on the other hand, very much is.
perhaps truth is there, but the issue is not about smart enough to "stay in power", the issue is "smart enough to prevent what they want to be able to do". Surely you have heard enough from Iran to understand that they are smart as a weasel, yet unprincipled as a Chinese?

If it did happen though, do you remember 9/11? That was small potatoes compared to a nuclear attack, and for a brief moment the vast majority of the world was supporting the USA and willing to assist in getting the people responsible. The Bush administration managed to micturate that goodwill away in short order, but a nuclear attack against a civilian target would probably create even greater short-term unity and support for the victims.
But my point is that support for the victims is only sympathy and otherwise meaningless in terms of retribution if the guilty do not confess. Would you expect, in today's world, that they would?

Heck, imagine what kind of world we would live in if the USA would actually put petty thugs like the rulers of Kuwait in their place, since they hold the whip hand over them already anyway.
I lived for nearly 10 years in Kuwait. Don't pretend to give this kind of fake knowledge and expect to be taken seriously.:mad: It was, is, not a Western democracy, but the fact is that is was one of the most easygoing and liberal and considerate of the Gulf states that I knew. I was married, in a church, if you believe that, there; and still am to the same beautiful woman. If you want opinions on the other neighbors which I visited often, I'll give those too.

The current US administration is interested in "putting petty dictators in their place" if and only if it happens to coincide with their personal fantasies of using the world as their Risk board.

Fantasies work both ways, if you get my meaning.:cool:


The USA got into bed with equally objectionable regimes during the Cold War, for pretty much the same reasons. China is looking after itself first, and going out of their way to stop their rivals getting too powerful or adventurous.
Excuse the present on the past. Sounds familiar.

North Korea is the anus of the world, but it's where China stopped a recent round of US expansion-by-proxy. You can't exactly blame them for wanting that barrier to stay where it is.
BS. When did the US last provide nuclear technology, deliberately and with malice etc., to a homicidal dictarorship?:mad:

[Kevin_Lowe]

perhaps truth is there, but the issue is not about smart enough to "stay in power", the issue is "smart enough to prevent what they want to be able to do". Surely you have heard enough from Iran to understand that they are smart as a weasel, yet unprincipled as a Chinese?

You lost me with "smart enough to prevent what they want to be able to do", sorry.


But my point is that support for the victims is only sympathy and otherwise meaningless in terms of retribution if the guilty do not confess. Would you expect, in today's world, that they would?


I assume we're talking about a smuggled nuke scenario, rather than a straightforward missile attack?

My understanding is that it is likely that between analysis of the fallout, leaked information between intelligence services and so on, the place the bomb came from and how it got to its target could be figured out. The list of candidates at any one time is very short, after all.

It's also a fairly unlikely scenario, because the people with the nuclear weapons stand to gain nothing by toasting a single city anywhere, nor by giving terrorist nutjobs a nuclear weapon.


I lived for nearly 10 years in Kuwait. Don't pretend to give this kind of fake knowledge and expect to be taken seriously.:mad: It was, is, not a Western democracy, but the fact is that is was one of the most easygoing and liberal and considerate of the Gulf states that I knew. I was married, in a church, if you believe that, there; and still am to the same beautiful woman. If you want opinions on the other neighbors which I visited often, I'll give those too.

Easygoing, liberal and democratic if you're a US citizen I'm sure. You weren't a local bucking the ruling elite.

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/kwt-summary-eng

I'll believe the USA is actually interested in freedom, democracy and so on when it starts pressuring Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and so on to become morre free and democratic.


Fantasies work both ways, if you get my meaning.:cool:


Denial is not an argument.


Excuse the present on the past. Sounds familiar.


Leopards don't change their spots. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that the USA has never been any more principled than the nations you are criticisng when it comes to getting into bed with ratbags.


BS. When did the US last provide nuclear technology, deliberately and with malice etc., to a homicidal dictarorship?:mad:

When would it last have served the USA well to have done so?

If the only thing standing between the US border and Chinese forces was one tiny nation, which the Chinese had nearly conquered before, then I think the US would be passing them nuclear technology as fast as possible. After all, best to have the nuclear deterrent in notionally independent hands in such a case. That way the homeland is less likely to get drawn in to a nuclear exchange, and the threat that the weapons will be used to defend the tiny nation is more credible.

It's not nice, but it's smart.

[Art Vandelay]

The USA got into bed with equally objectionable regimes during the Cold War, for pretty much the same reasons. China is looking after itself first, and going out of their way to stop their rivals getting too powerful or adventurous.That's just libel. The US was facing an ideology that was attempting to conquer the world, and the acted in self defense and defense of others. China is just acting in the interests of its rulers (not even in the interests of China in general).

North Korea is the anus of the world, but it's where China stopped a recent round of US expansion-by-proxy.More revisionist BS.

Leopards don't change their spots. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that the USA has never been any more principled than the nations you are criticisng when it comes to getting into bed with ratbags.The US is no better than China.
:rolleyes:
You're insane.

[Kevin_Lowe]

That's just libel. The US was facing an ideology that was attempting to conquer the world, and the acted in self defense and defense of others. China is just acting in the interests of its rulers (not even in the interests of China in general).


Libel has to be false. Are you actually denying that both the USA and the USSR supported total ratbags whenever there was any advantage in it for them? Or are you just saying that the USA is better because it was crying crocodile tears on the inside when it did so?


More revisionist BS.


Just historical fact, Art. China pushed the US forces back down to the current border, and it's been a fortified line ever since. Now little Bush has given notice that North Korea is on his hit list and that reopening hostilities on that front is an option. What would you do if you were China?


The US is no better than China.
:rolleyes:
You're insane.

One more straw man from Art Vandelay.

[geni]

As soon as the first nuke drops, regardless of who drops it, the UN will cease to even exist in theory, as it only does now.

Everyone will choose their own sides (as they do now) but no longer pay them the lip service they do currently.

That would depend to a lrage degree on who droped it on who.


The UN must be the most counterproductive organization every to exist.


It atchived it's initial objective.


Any falling nuke will pull that curtain back and expose it for what it really is.

The UN survived last time nukes were droped.

[blakehaydn]

The UN must be the most counterproductive organization every to exist. Any falling nuke will pull that curtain back and expose it for what it really is.

Pretty close, but I think the League Of Nations had them beat.

[blakehaydn]

They are obviously suicidal anyways, why would a nuclear strike stop them?

And you see a different solution to the problem outside of a nuclear attack? Unless Syria and Iran are both taken out now, we will eventually see nuclear war. I prefer we drop it on them first.

Now you listen to me Azure, and you listen good. The only time nuclear weapons should ever so much as to even be considered being used is in Sid Meier's Civilization.

[gumboot]

Where do you get that from?


I think you misread me. I was basically saying the SC would be in breach of the UN Charter if it tried to stop a nation using force under Article 51 (self defence).

I believe this is the logic Israel primarily uses for explaining its failure to comply with UN Resolutions. It considers itself under threat, thus invokes Article 51. Until such time as the SC restores peace, Israel is entitled to continue using force to protect itself under Article 51, regardless of what SC resolutions such action may breach.



All countries are legally obligated to help in the actions mandated by the SC, but I very much doubt that this help is specified or limited to one squadron of airplanes.

I was a little off, and I wasn't implying it was "limited" to that. That was simply what must be available "immediately":


ARTICLE 45

In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action...

Note the hypenation of "air-force" which identifies these assets as being air units capable of exerting force (in other words aircraft with weapons) as opposed to the "Air Force" (being a common branch of a nation's armed forces).

One interpretation of Article 45 would be that all UN member states have to have either attack or fighter aircraft of some discription that are IMMEDIATELY available to the UN upon being needed. Not having such assets would technically put you in breach of Article 45.

This was an argument many people here put forward when the our government disbanded the strike wing of our Air Force.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

The UN is never unanimous in silence and never will be unanimous in anything, assuming we are talking of the general council, let alone the vestigial cold war security council


It is actually surprising how often the UN *does* vote unanimously. The Security Council, has just voted unanimously to impose sanctions on North Korea, for example, despite North Korea having already announced it will regard such action as a declaration of war.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

The Chinese are the doodoo's of the world these days in my opinion.


I tend to be very skeptical of people declaring global war is about to errupt, but I have to admit I'm pretty worried about China. They're doing some things which are VERY scary, and there is the potential there for some major problems.

Most important of all, the things they do don't make register overly high in the media because everyone is so obsessed with Iran and N.Korea (neither of which I think are really a threat).

But China... that's another story entirely. They are already using their economic might to quite literally purchase the entire Pacific (our Defence Force came back from the last Pacific Island Summit feeling VERY concerned about China's sphere of influence).

-Andrew

[gumboot]

The UN survived last time nukes were droped.



The UN didn't exist last time nukes were dropped.

-Andrew

[geni]

The UN didn't exist last time nukes were dropped.

-Andrew

Then I guess this poster is a fake:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Naciones_Unidas_3.jpg

The UN first appeared in 1942.

[gumboot]

Then I guess this poster is a fake:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Naciones_Unidas_3.jpg

The UN first appeared in 1942.


To quote from the same article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_nations) that picture is taken from:

The UN came into existence on October 24, 1945, after the Charter had been ratified by the five permanent members of the Security Council — Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and the United States — and by a majority of the other 46 signatories.

The poster refers to the phrase "United Nations", not the organisation. This discussion was regarding the survival of the United Nations Organisation post a nuclear attack. One would have to be stupid to think the phrase "United Nations" would suddenly and mysteriously vanish from the English language as a result of a nuclear attack.

As for the phrase "United Nations":

Franklin D. Roosevelt first suggested using the name "United Nations" to refer to the wartime Allies[1]. Roosevelt suggested the term to Winston Churchill who cited Byron's use of the phrase "united nations" in Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, which referred to the Allies at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. United States president Franklin D. Roosevelt adopted the name and the first official use of the term occurred on January 1, 1942 with the Declaration by the United Nations.

During subsequent phases of World War II the Allies used the term "United Nations" to refer to their alliance.

-Andrew

[Azure]

As soon as the first nuke drops, regardless of who drops it, the UN will cease to even exist in theory, as it only does now.

Everyone will choose their own sides (as they do now) but no longer pay them the lip service they do currently.

The UN must be the most counterproductive organization every to exist. Any falling nuke will pull that curtain back and expose it for what it really is.

Basically, the UN is doing the same thing the League of Nations did.

Nothing.

[Azure]

Now you listen to me Azure, and you listen good. The only time nuclear weapons should ever so much as to even be considered being used is in Sid Meier's Civilization.

LOL. :D

[Kerberos]

Now you listen to me Azure, and you listen good. The only time nuclear weapons should ever so much as to even be considered being used is in Sid Meier's Civilization.
You clearly never played "nuclear war".

[Art Vandelay]

Libel has to be false. Are you actually denying that both the USA and the USSR supported total ratbags whenever there was any advantage in it for them? Yes. And that it did so it self defense and defense of others, rather than just self-interest.

Just historical fact, Art. China pushed the US forces back down to the current border, and it's been a fortified line ever since. So because China attacked US forces, that means that the US was engaged in expansionism?

Now little Bush has given notice that North Korea is on his hit list and that reopening hostilities on that front is an option. The most bellicose words have been coming from NK, not the US.

One more straw man from Art Vandelay.No, you said "the USA has never been any more principled than the nations you are criticisng when it comes to getting into bed with ratbags".

Now you listen to me Azure, and you listen good. The only time nuclear weapons should ever so much as to even be considered being used is in Sid Meier's Civilization.Howitzers usually work better. No pollution, you capture a larger city, and fewer city improvements are destroyed. Plus, you don't lose the howitzers. Although if you're a democracy and are tired of other civilizations forcing you to sign peace treaties, planting a nuclear device is a good way to get them to break the treaties. And it's cheaper, too. I'm not sure why planting a nuclear device is so much worse than launching one.

[yinyinwang]

Libel has to be false. Are you actually denying that both the USA and the USSR supported total ratbags whenever there was any advantage in it for them? Or are you just saying that the USA is better because it was crying crocodile tears on the inside when it did so?


A criminal's defence is not the same thing as an innocent man's defence.

[a_unique_person]

All you need is a centrifuge, a Geiger counter, and at least one graduate student. :rolleyes:

Thousands, that should read.

[Bruce]

To get the full yield, you need to get the lumps to stay together long enough for all the uranium to fission.

Who says you need full yield to make an effective nuclear weapon?

So you take out a city block instead of a city. It would still count as a nuclear bomb and scare the piss out of everyone. :(

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes. And that it did so it self defense and defense of others, rather than just self-interest.


Okay, well, let's pick an example. Suharto. Explain how assisting his coup was an act of self defence and defence of others.


So because China attacked US forces, that means that the US was engaged in expansionism?


More straw.


The most bellicose words have been coming from NK, not the US.


How does a missile test compare to invading Iraq (a fellow member of the "axis of evil" hit list) on the scale of bellicose actions?


No, you said "the USA has never been any more principled than the nations you are criticisng when it comes to getting into bed with ratbags".

Yes. You decided this meant "The US is no better than China". That statement was and is a straw man.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Who says you need full yield to make an effective nuclear weapon?

So you take out a city block instead of a city. It would still count as a nuclear bomb and scare the piss out of everyone. :(

Well, it would be a strong competitor for the title of the least efficient city-block taking-out in history.

[gumboot]

How does a missile test compare to invading Iraq (a fellow member of the "axis of evil" hit list) on the scale of bellicose actions?




How does "The US invades Iraq" equate to "The US is going to invade North Korea"?

On the other hand North Korea has said they would regard the imposing of sanctions as a declaration of war.

I guess since the UN Security Council has unanimously decided to impose sanctions, we're now at war with North Korea. Oh that's right, we've been at war with them for 60 years. Nevermind.

-Andrew

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Just historical fact, Art. China pushed the US forces back down to the current border, and it's been a fortified line ever since. Now little Bush has given notice that North Korea is on his hit list and that reopening hostilities on that front is an option. What would you do if you were China?

Hate to butt in here, but your original assertion that Korea was where China checked "US expansion-by-proxy" is absurd. Prior to the Korean War the United States had a very little interest in Korea at all, and had pretty much accepted the 38th parallel division. The U.S. had withdrawn the vast majority of its forces from the Korean peninsula, except for a couple hundred observers, and barely supplied the Korean Army with enough weapons to even call itself an Army. They had no tanks, no attack aircraft -- next to nothing except some WWII surplus small arms. In 1950, U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson famously excluded Korea from his description of the U.S. defensive perimeter. Although this is often erroneously cited as actually causing the North Korean attack on the South, it certainly illustrates quite well how interested the U.S. was in Korea -- which was not very much. The U.S. had very little desire to be engaged in another hot war so soon after WWII. Like Kim Il-Sung, Syngman Rhee hoped to reunify the Korean peninsula under his rule. Unlike Kim Il-Sung and the USSR, however, Syngman Rhee was given very limited support from the United States, who intentionally restrained Rhee from starting a war of unification. By contrast, the USSR supplied Kim Il-Sung with advanced tanks, aircraft, and other weaponry. Thus, when he got the green light from the USSR to invade, he was able to very quickly defeat South Korea's military and nearly take over the entire peninsula.

I am not sure how you could even claim that the Korean War was "US expansion-by-proxy" if you knew anything about it. The by-proxy aspect doesn't even make sense, since U.S. forces were directly engaged in the war, and the U.S. had effective operational control of the UN Forces. The Korean War was not, by any means, a desired battlefield for the U.S. It was a Soviet war of expansion-by-proxy.

The Chinese, for their part, certainly didn't want a U.S. friendly regime on their border. Strategically, they were protecting their own interests when they attacked. But they were not checking a deliberate U.S. expansion, and certainly not an expansion-by-proxy. Had the United States removed that North Korean regime and unified the peninsula under a U.S.-friendly regime, it would have probably done the same thing it was doing before: been generally disinterested in Korea. What drew the U.S. to be significantly interested in Korea was the Soviet-backed invasion followed by Chinese intervention. It was not the other way around.

[Art Vandelay]

Okay, well, let's pick an example. Suharto. Explain how assisting his coup was an act of self defence and defence of others.According to this logic, since that DC sniper was black, all black people are criminals.

More straw.First you post a bunch of lies about the US, then you post a non sequitur response to my debunking, then when I ask you to explain it, you declare my REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION a stawman. Are you psychotic or something?

How does a missile test compare to invading Iraq (a fellow member of the "axis of evil" hit list) on the scale of bellicose actions?Now who's posting straw?

Yes. You decided this meant "The US is no better than China".So what's the difference between that and what you said?

Had the United States removed that North Korean regime and unified the peninsula under a U.S.-friendly regime, it would have probably done the same thing it was doing before: been generally disinterested in Korea.I think that a better word would have been "uninterested". "Disinterested" means "has nothing at stake". "Uninterested" means "not paying attention".

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I think that a better word would have been "uninterested". "Disinterested" means "has nothing at stake". "Uninterested" means "not paying attention".

Yes, good point, uninterested. Although the U.S. would have been uninterested because it would be mostly disinterested. :boggled:

[Kevin_Lowe]

I am not sure how you could even claim that the Korean War was "US expansion-by-proxy" if you knew anything about it. The by-proxy aspect doesn't even make sense, since U.S. forces were directly engaged in the war, and the U.S. had effective operational control of the UN Forces. The Korean War was not, by any means, a desired battlefield for the U.S. It was a Soviet war of expansion-by-proxy.

If the USA had stopped at the 38th parallel, as per the Chinese ultimatum, China probably would have stayed out of the war.

In my opinion you cross the line between "maintaining the status quo" and "expansion" when you start pushing into the territory of the other state and look intent on conquering it.


The Chinese, for their part, certainly didn't want a U.S. friendly regime on their border. Strategically, they were protecting their own interests when they attacked. But they were not checking a deliberate U.S. expansion, and certainly not an expansion-by-proxy. Had the United States removed that North Korean regime and unified the peninsula under a U.S.-friendly regime, it would have probably done the same thing it was doing before: been generally disinterested in Korea. What drew the U.S. to be significantly interested in Korea was the Soviet-backed invasion followed by Chinese intervention. It was not the other way around.

I think there has to be an element of doublethink here. The USA didn't care about Korea, then they suddenly cared enough to fight a war, but if they'd won they would have stopped caring again? How can the Chinese have a strategic interest in preventing a US-friendly state pushing up to their border, but the US have no strategic interest in a US-friendly state doing so? I don't think you can have it both ways.

What it boils down to is that China already fought a war to keep a buffer between themselves and US-friendly South Korea, and the USA has been making threatening noises about that buffer they fought for. Calling China names for not liking that is, at best, naive.

[Kevin_Lowe]

According to this logic, since that DC sniper was black, all black people are criminals.

In other words, you can't. Thanks for playing.


First you post a bunch of lies about the US, then you post a non sequitur response to my debunking, then when I ask you to explain it, you declare my REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION a stawman. Are you psychotic or something?

No, but I've stopped beating my wife.


Now who's posting straw?


It's not a straw man, I'm just pointing out that you framed your statement in such a way as to exclude actions from consideration, in favour of comparing words. That's misleading at best and dishonest at worst.


So what's the difference between that and what you said?

If I have to explain it to you, you don't understand plain English.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

If the USA had stopped at the 38th parallel, as per the Chinese ultimatum, China probably would have stayed out of the war.

Yeah, and North Korea would have rebuilt its military to one of the largest in the world, created an insular, dynastic regime that starved millions of its own people, and built nuclear weapons. Had the US successfully gotten rid of the Kim regime, it probably wouldn't be the headache it is today.

In my opinion you cross the line between "maintaining the status quo" and "expansion" when you start pushing into the territory of the other state and look intent on conquering it.

Well yeah. And given that the North was the country that pushed into the territory of the other state with the intent of conquering it, it became pretty clear to the United States that the status quo was not working. Given how clear the North and the USSR made it that they had no intention of maintaining the status quo (and I don't think you get more clear than an all-out invasion), it wasn't unreasonable for the United States to try and ensure that the war ended on the best possible terms for them. It was that, or stop at the 38th parallel and allow North Korea to continue to threaten to invade the South, which would force the United States to continually station thousands of troops in Korea and spend billions of dollars there -- you know, what actually happened.

I think there has to be an element of doublethink here. The USA didn't care about Korea, then they suddenly cared enough to fight a war, but if they'd won they would have stopped caring again?

You think wrong. The USA didn't care about South Korea very much because it assumed that the USSR and North Korea would adhere to the 38th parallel division that was agreed upon. The U.S. was fine with that, and didn't care about Korea enough to try and reunify the peninsula under a U.S. friendly regime. In other words, it recognized the Chinese/Soviet buffer state. The USSR did not reciprocate. The U.S. was uninterested in Korea until there was an actual invasion attempt by the North. A Soviet-backed Army invading another country will generally grab attention. Had the U.S. been able to remove the Kim regime and hang on to the rest of the North, it would probably have gone back to being fairly uninterested in Korea. The U.S. didn't see much strategic value in stationing troops in Korea -- in fact, in many respects it still doesn't. The main U.S. ally in East Asia was intended to be Japan.

There is no "doublethink." The U.S. didn't care about Korea as long as the status quo remained. When the status quo was broken by the North, the U.S. decided the best thing to do was to ensure that the North couldn't try to invade again. Had they been successful, Korea would be a non-communist state. As long as China didn't threaten to invade, the U.S. could have gotten away with simply having a few observers in South Korea and providing them very limited aid. In fact, had that happened, China may have been able to influence the whole of Korea a lot more than they do today.

How can the Chinese have a strategic interest in preventing a US-friendly state pushing up to their border, but the US have no strategic interest in a US-friendly state doing so? I don't think you can have it both ways.

The U.S. strategic interest was in not having to constantly worry about whether or not South Korea would be invaded by a USSR-backed regime in the North. The U.S. would have accepted either a benign Soviet-backed regime in the North, or an entire peninsula unified under a non-Communist regime. What was against American strategic interests was to have a country in the North that would clearly try to destabilize and invade the South at every opportunity and require the U.S. to expend a lot of resources to build up and defend South Korea.

What it boils down to is that China already fought a war to keep a buffer between themselves and US-friendly South Korea, and the USA has been making threatening noises about that buffer they fought for. Calling China names for not liking that is, at best, naive.

And that was nearly 60 year ago when China was a sworn enemy of the United States. Now, China claims to not be an enemy. For a country that is no longer an enemy, it is certainly curious why China feels the need for a dictatorial "buffer state" between themselves and South Korea -- especially given that China is South Korea's #1 trading partner. Moreover, if North Korea were to ever join the South in a democratic government, not only would you have millions of North Koreans, far more sympathetic to China than the U.S., participating in the government, the main reason for the U.S. presence in South Korea would be gone.

North Korea represents far more than a "buffer state." It represents a country that can threaten both the United States and, more importantly, Japan. It represents a bargaining chip for China in East Asia. It also represents an old ally that China does not want to give up.

It may be naive to call China names for continuing to support North Korea, but it is equally naive to assume that China is simply trying to protect its "buffer state." North Korea, for all the times that it embarrasses China, still represents a strong Chinese ally. It is a card China could play if, say, there were ever an issue over Taiwan, and it is a card that gives China leverage over the United States. If North Korea goes away, so goes that leverage.

[mrfreeze]

Now you listen to me Azure, and you listen good. The only time nuclear weapons should ever so much as to even be considered being used is in Sid Meier's Civilization.

Or Alpha Centauri. Especially when no one else has them and you have a big enough budget to crank them out en masse. God that game was awesome.

[Kerberos]

I think you misread me. I was basically saying the SC would be in breach of the UN Charter if it tried to stop a nation using force under Article 51 (self defence).

Ahh, OK.

[mrfreeze]

Funnily enough, I remember recently reading the findings of a study done on survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


If you happen to have the time at some point, could you drop me a link to that study if you still have it? I would be interested in reading it.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yeah, and North Korea would have rebuilt its military to one of the largest in the world, created an insular, dynastic regime that starved millions of its own people, and built nuclear weapons. Had the US successfully gotten rid of the Kim regime, it probably wouldn't be the headache it is today.


The discussion was just about whether "expansion" was a legitimate term to use with regard to attempts to push past the 38th parallel, not whether with hindsight you can justify an attempt at expansion.


You think wrong. The USA didn't care about South Korea very much because it assumed that the USSR and North Korea would adhere to the 38th parallel division that was agreed upon. The U.S. was fine with that, and didn't care about Korea enough to try and reunify the peninsula under a U.S. friendly regime. In other words, it recognized the Chinese/Soviet buffer state. The USSR did not reciprocate. The U.S. was uninterested in Korea until there was an actual invasion attempt by the North. A Soviet-backed Army invading another country will generally grab attention. Had the U.S. been able to remove the Kim regime and hang on to the rest of the North, it would probably have gone back to being fairly uninterested in Korea. The U.S. didn't see much strategic value in stationing troops in Korea -- in fact, in many respects it still doesn't. The main U.S. ally in East Asia was intended to be Japan.

So in other words the US was interested in expanding north, but you can justify it. We don't disagree.

And that was nearly 60 year ago when China was a sworn enemy of the United States. Now, China claims to not be an enemy. For a country that is no longer an enemy, it is certainly curious why China feels the need for a dictatorial "buffer state" between themselves and South Korea -- especially given that China is South Korea's #1 trading partner.

Times can change, and it's not too far from the North Korean border to Beijing. Taiwan has been a potential flashpoint for US/Chinese conflict for ages, and NK is one now. Both sides of necessity plan for worst-case scenarios, and I'm sure one of the things China worries about in the event of a blow-up with Taiwan is the threat of land forces coming in from the Korean direction if a unified and US-friendly Korea existed.


North Korea represents far more than a "buffer state." It represents a country that can threaten both the United States and, more importantly, Japan. It represents a bargaining chip for China in East Asia. It also represents an old ally that China does not want to give up.

It may be naive to call China names for continuing to support North Korea, but it is equally naive to assume that China is simply trying to protect its "buffer state." North Korea, for all the times that it embarrasses China, still represents a strong Chinese ally. It is a card China could play if, say, there were ever an issue over Taiwan, and it is a card that gives China leverage over the United States. If North Korea goes away, so goes that leverage.

Indeed.

[gumboot]

Or Alpha Centauri. Especially when no one else has them and you have a big enough budget to crank them out en masse. God that game was awesome.

I remember a really old game called "Global Thermo-nuclear War" (I guess it was a tie-in to the movie "War Games"). It's odd to think now that there used to be a computer game in which the objective was to wage a MAD style nuclear war against another country.

Would be completely un-PC now.

-Andrew

[David Swidler]

I remember a really old game called "Global Thermo-nuclear War" (I guess it was a tie-in to the movie "War Games"). It's odd to think now that there used to be a computer game in which the objective was to wage a MAD style nuclear war against another country.

Would be completely un-PC now.

-Andrew
I'm remembering a darkly humorous ad from Robocop for a "family" game: Nukem. "Get them before they get you. Another quality home game from Butler Brothers."

[gumboot]

If you happen to have the time at some point, could you drop me a link to that study if you still have it? I would be interested in reading it.

Off the top of my head... it was a newspaper article. No doubt I can find a link to the study somewhere... may take a lil while... :) It was fairly recently released, however.

I'll try remember to have a look tomorrow. :)

For now, there is this book:

Effects of Atomic Radiation: A Half-Century of Studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki by William J Schull which reflects the same general findings - nuclear bombs do not produce birth defects in population groups after the event, or continuing long-term health issues.

This may, in fact be the same study (the book is from 1995 IIRC, but no doubt their study would be ongoing) or it could be another study. Unfortunately I'd need to find the stuff I read to confirm this. Will keep you posted. :)

-Andrew

[mrfreeze]

I remember a really old game called "Global Thermo-nuclear War" (I guess it was a tie-in to the movie "War Games"). It's odd to think now that there used to be a computer game in which the objective was to wage a MAD style nuclear war against another country.

Would be completely un-PC now.

-Andrew

Well it seems that in '01 a game came out called "MAD: Thermonuclear War". That's the closest I can find though.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The discussion was just about whether "expansion" was a legitimate term to use with regard to attempts to push past the 38th parallel, not whether with hindsight you can justify an attempt at expansion.

That is an odd twist on the word "expansion." The term you used orginally was a "expansion-by-proxy," which in most usage refers to a war of expansion -- an intentional grab for land with an intent to occupy permanently -- not a counterattack against a country that was the aggressor to begin with, likely followed by an almost complete withdrawal of troops. I rarely hear of the Allied march into Germany in WWII as a war of "expansion." The goal of the United States was to get rid of the aggressive regime, not to grab land that the U.S. had very little desire to be in to begin with.

*** Edited to clarify

Times can change, and it's not too far from the North Korean border to Beijing. Taiwan has been a potential flashpoint for US/Chinese conflict for ages, and NK is one now. Both sides of necessity plan for worst-case scenarios, and I'm sure one of the things China worries about in the event of a blow-up with Taiwan is the threat of land forces coming in from the Korean direction if a unified and US-friendly Korea existed.

If a unified US-friendly Korea existed being the key. China has as much chance, and probably more given their cultural and current economic ties, to sway Korea onto its side if it were unified. But why risk letting the Korean people decide when the dictator decided for them. China has more options on the table than just letting North Korea fester, but North Korea has an effective purpose for them right now. Much like with the USSR, North Korea, in many respects, works as a proxy state for China, even if they don't know it. They may be worried in the long-term about a land invasion, but it would take a drastic change in the world for the U.S. to seriously consider a land invasion of China -- especially via that route. The terrain in that area is a guerilla's heaven. The Japanese found that out 70 years ago.

[Art Vandelay]

If the USA had stopped at the 38th parallel, as per the Chinese ultimatum, China probably would have stayed out of the war.If you wished to support your claim that the US was engaged in expansionism because they went past the 38th parallel, why didn't you say so, rather than make a completely different claim? I see no good-faith explanation for you posting an evasive response, then accusing me of a strawman when I tried to get you to explain it.

In my opinion you cross the line between "maintaining the status quo" and "expansion" when you start pushing into the territory of the other state and look intent on conquering it.In other words, in your opinion it's okay to redefine words to suit your argument. Are you seriously suggesting that when the US or one of its allies is attacked, it should restrict all of its military operations to the US and its allies? War is about attacking the other guy's army. The NK army was north of the 38th, so the US went north of the 38th. What were they supposed to do, just sit around and wait for another invasion?

What it boils down to is that China already fought a war to keep a buffer between themselves and US-friendly South Korea, and the USA has been making threatening noises about that buffer they fought for. Calling China names for not liking that is, at best, naive.In other words, CHINA fought a war of expansion for its own interests. Of course they don't like the idea of having to give up a buffer state. Too bad.

It's not a straw man, I'm just pointing out that you framed your statement in such a way as to exclude actions from consideration, in favour of comparing words. That's misleading at best and dishonest at worst.You're the one who started discussing the words of Bush, then you complained when I talked about the words of NK. YOU'RE the one who's being misleading and dishonest.