so... no more nukes

or should a say less but it looks possible

Why would we no longer have nukes?

That's like saying "Hey, we're not going to use guns to kill people any more cuz guns kill people really fast."

The idea of ridding the world of nuclear weapons is laughable to say the least.

then blame Obama and the 15 countrys of the UN security counsil

if the UN said it shall be so, then it definitely isn't going to be so

someone's going to increase production

yes but knowing Obama (not trying to bash him) it will happen in the US

It's only a scale down.

You'll still be able to destroy the Earth about 3 times over now.

What difference does it make if we can destroy the earth three times over or a thousand? All it takes is one.

Mereel wrote:then blame Obama and the 15 countrys of the UN security council

first off, the UN never accomplishes anything

second, its an idea that will never come to fruition, just like the psychotic belief that at some point america won't have troops in the middle east.

I personally think the Middle east will just fight amongst each other, until one decisively wins.

And it will take a long long time to reach that point. Isreal and Palestine have been at each other's throats for over 50 years.

Only palestine had Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq to help it...and they STILL got their ass kicked. If it wasnt for Hamas, Palestine would be subdued, er, mostly, by now.

CivBase wrote:Why would we no longer have nukes?

That's like saying "Hey, we're not going to use guns to kill people any more cuz guns kill people really fast."

The idea of ridding the world of nuclear weapons is laughable to say the least.

Not from the perspective of the United States......

The US, by a VERY WIDE MARGIN, has the greatest military force in the world. The trouble with nukes is that a SINGLE one can pose a massive threat, and completely undermine that military. It would be in our best interest to get rid of them.

I bet NK and Iran have agreed to this.

realistically, there is no use in having nuclear weapons when everyone else does

KristallNacht wrote:realistically, there is no use in having nuclear weapons when everyone else does

except to shoot nuke people while they're talking about disarmament

2012 can't come soon enough

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:Why would we no longer have nukes?

That's like saying "Hey, we're not going to use guns to kill people any more cuz guns kill people really fast."

The idea of ridding the world of nuclear weapons is laughable to say the least.

Not from the perspective of the United States......

The US, by a VERY WIDE MARGIN, has the greatest military force in the world. The trouble with nukes is that a SINGLE one can pose a massive threat, and completely undermine that military. It would be in our best interest to get rid of them.

Quite wrong, actually.

Eliminating our nuclear stockpile throws away our MAD protection, leaving us at the mercy of people with nukes and the requisite delivery platforms.

In the meantime, our "Greatest Military" has yet to find a way to counter the New Way of Warfare: A man with no formal training armed with an assault rifle and knowledge of the ground upon which he fights has a MASSIVE edge over more technically advanced militaries.

KristallNacht wrote:realistically, there is no use in having nuclear weapons when everyone else does

Quite wrong.
Having nukes deters people from using those nukes. So nukes become a necessity as more factions acquire them.

Quite wrong, actually.

Eliminating our nuclear stockpile throws away our MAD protection, leaving us at the mercy of people with nukes and the requisite delivery platforms.

I didn't mean getting rid of all our nukes. I meant decreasing our MASSIVE stockpile, and in turn, developing a policy to stop other nations (ones that don't already have nukes) from acquiring them.

My point was that we have the most powerful Navy in the world, and pretty equally amazing ground forces... but one nuke held by a small dictatorship or terrorist organization could potentially undermine all of that.

ReconToaster wrote:

Quite wrong, actually.

Eliminating our nuclear stockpile throws away our MAD protection, leaving us at the mercy of people with nukes and the requisite delivery platforms.

I didn't mean getting rid of all our nukes. I meant decreasing our MASSIVE stockpile, and in turn, developing a policy to stop other nations (ones that don't already have nukes) from acquiring them.

My point was that we have the most powerful Navy in the world, and pretty equally amazing ground forces... but one nuke held by a small dictatorship or terrorist organization could potentially undermine all of that.

The problem is that, although we are bound through treaty to prevent proliferation, WE ARE NOT FOLLOWING THAT TREATY!
It's like Rwanda. The administration DELIBERATELY avoided using words like "Genocide" in memos and communications, because then they would have to get involved, because of a treaty we signed in 1948.

What we need to do is ramp up detection methods and create a calendar. After discovery, a nation would have one year to shut down an enrichment plant and submit to international scrutiny, or submit to international scrutiny and work out a plan to assure outside nations that nuclear-grade material is not being developed.

After one year, that plant will be shut down with force if guidelines are not met.

Yeah, the Rwanda genocide stuff really pisses me off.

Violations of UN regulations should be ABSOLUTE TOP PRIORITY OF ALL NATIONS INVOLVED.

That's the reason why we formed the UN. Instead, we're wasting time flipping out about Global Warming...

Well, in all fairness, we'd just pulled out of Somalia.

But yeah, our top priorities should be:
Stopping transfer of small arms, and tracking munitions sales.
Ensuring even distribution of food and medical supplies, including the termination of fake drug trafficking.
Preventing Nuclear Proliferation.

your forgetting the: Develop a cheap reliable counter-nuke system that isn't nuclear itself.

dragoon9105 wrote:your forgetting the: Develop a cheap reliable counter-nuke system that isn't nuclear itself.

At this point, that's more of a NATO priority.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
In the meantime, our "Greatest Military" has yet to find a way to counter the New Way of Warfare: A man with no formal training armed with an assault rifle and knowledge of the ground upon which he fights has a MASSIVE edge over more technically advanced militaries.

KristallNacht wrote:realistically, there is no use in having nuclear weapons when everyone else does

Quite wrong.
Having nukes deters people from using those nukes. So nukes become a necessity as more factions acquire them.

thats what i mean.

and the 'greatest military' is also the people that TAUGHT those enemies this 'new way of warfare' and they don't have a MASSIVE edge since it doesn't even balance out. it brings them up from the result in a typical war of attrition but still doesn't even the playing field.

The real question we should be asking is "How do you win a war with no counter strikes?"

I believe the Russians figured this out a long time ago: Strike first.

The only thing stopping us from adopting realpolitik is morality.

Well, you could hit Iran, espically after today's revelation about there secret second Uranium enrichment facility.

I doubt they will back down, espically as the current regime is in trouble as people think they rigged the vote.