Please correct me if I am wrong (and I'm sure someone will).

1)The USA has more nuclear weapons than any single country.

2)The US government does not want other countries to make nuclear weapons, but it is okay for the US to have them.

3)The United States does not want other countries to tests nuclear weapons, but we are about to start doing it ourselves.

4)The US wants Russia to reduce the number of nukes they have and so will we. This does not mean destruction of them (at least at our end), it means dismantling them or taking them offline for possible repostioning or later use.

5)The Pentagon has informed the Congress it is planning for the possible use of nuclear weapons against countries that threaten us.

They are preparing contingency plans for using them against 7 nations: China, Russia, Iraq (big surprise), North Korea (2nd big surprise), Iran (last big surprise), Libya, and Syria. (This from the LA Times.)

Think about what happens to this world if even one of these nukes fly.
Think of the fallout.
Think of the legacy we will leave for our children.

I know this is being a little over the top and I apologise, but the bigger danger is how other nations will react to this. We could blame the media for leaking this, but that's not really fair. Just that this adminstration would think of doing this, means BIG trouble for the 3rd stone from the Sun. We a creating a Cold War tha dwarfs the last one. The nuclear clock again approaches midnight.

This Administration is leading us down the highway to Hell and will take the rest of the World with it.

Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do, the dictator is in control.


Mark

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by skywalker:
Please correct me if I am wrong (and I'm sure someone will).

1)The USA has more nuclear weapons than any single country.

2)The US government does not want other countries to make nuclear weapons, but it is okay for the US to have them.

3)The United States does not want other countries to tests nuclear weapons, but we are about to start doing it ourselves.

4)The US wants Russia to reduce the number of nukes they have and so will we. This does not mean destruction of them (at least at our end), it means dismantling them or taking them offline for possible repostioning or later use.

5)The Pentagon has informed the Congress it is planning for the possible use of nuclear weapons against countries that threaten us.

They are preparing contingency plans for using them against 7 nations: China, Russia, Iraq (big surprise), North Korea (2nd big surprise), Iran (last big surprise), Libya, and Syria. (This from the LA Times.)

Think about what happens to this world if even one of these nukes fly.
Think of the fallout.
Think of the legacy we will leave for our children.

I know this is being a little over the top and I apologise, but the bigger danger is how other nations will react to this. We could blame the media for leaking this, but that's not really fair. Just that this adminstration would think of doing this, means BIG trouble for the 3rd stone from the Sun. We a creating a Cold War tha dwarfs the last one. The nuclear clock again approaches midnight.

This Administration is leading us down the highway to Hell and will take the rest of the World with it.

Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do, the dictator is in control.


Mark<hr></blockquote>

1.) I'm not completely sure about that, but I do know that prior to the 70's limitation talks the Russians had more nuclear weapons.

2.) As far as I'm aware no nations want other nations to develop nuclear weapons. It's no more OK for the US to have them than any of the other nations which current do. I haven't heard of any of the nuclear nations saying, "we have them, so let everyone have them."

3.) I'm not aware of any sceduled nuclear testing. If you are talking about the ABM shield tests, those aren't nukes, they destroy incoming nukes.

4.) Both the US and Russia have reduced the number of nuclear weapons and the talks continue to reduce the numbers even more. The nukes that have been dismantled are not stored for later repositioning, that would not be a reduction at all. They are completely dismantled under mutual observation. They send observers here and we send them there.

5.) I knew someone would post about this. It is not a "sky is falling" scenario. Every administration since Truman's has put forth contingency plans for the "nuclear option". Every admininstration reviews the policy currently in place and then makes it's own suggestions. This is not a plan to start attacking the 7 nations listed, it is a contingency plan. All nations with nuclear weapons do this.

There is no dictator in control of the US and you know it. You are over reacting to the report. Every article I've read, and every report I've seen always quantifies this contingency plan by saying, it's nothing new.

It is doubtful any of the nations on the list would be surprised to find their name there. You can bet those with their own nuclear weapons also have plans against the US. You are taking the existance of a contingency plan and making it seem like Bush is ready to launch against the world. This is so completely untrue.

Would you really be surprised to find out the Russians still target the US? The Chinese? Then why would you be surprised to know we target them? Is this the first you've heard of a US nuclear plan?They target US, we target them, and yet we continue to trade with them and deal with them as we always have. Nothing changed at the end of the Cold War, as far as contingency plans go, for anyone.

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
[QB]
4.) Both the US and Russia have reduced the number of nuclear weapons and the talks continue to reduce the numbers even more. The nukes that have been dismantled are not stored for later repositioning, that would not be a reduction at all. They are completely dismantled under mutual observation. They send observers here and we send them there.
QB]<hr></blockquote>

All Things Considered
Friday, February 22, 2002

U.S. Nuclear Arsenal
NPR's Mike Shuster reports that though President Bush came into office pledging deep reductions in the country's arsenal of nuclear weapons, it's become clear the administration does not intend to destroy the warheads it takes out of service. And in some areas, the administration wants to expand the capacity to make and use nuclear weapons. (5:00)

This is where I got my point about nuclear disarmament. I'm not making it up, I did hear it on NPR. Which by the way is probably the most non-biased news source I know of.

Hear it here: http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01...2F2002&PrgID=2

Mark

[EDIT: Added the link.]

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: skywalker ]</p>

Mark, we don't usually see "eye to eye" on things of this nature, but I don't think you'd make something up. :D

The Greenpeace article says the Bush administration is "considering" the resumption of testing, but that is a far cry from "about to start doing it ourselves". It also goes on to state numbers for nuclear reductions which are promising. If we are going to have X number of weapons, I'd think it would be better if they were of the smaller types and not "city killers".

I'll be interested to hear that link from NPR, but this older version off Media Player on my work NT machine won't do the trick(I can't update to the most current version here for some reason), but I'll check it out at home.

I'm really not sure how they would destroy the warheads. Blowing them up isn't a really good option...lol. But the previous agreements reached are monitered by both sides.

There has been a change in the idea of the use of nukes since the end of the Cold War. A shift from ICBMs to smaller tactical nukes. Maybe this is part of the story, but since I haven't heard it I'll with hold judgement.

That said, the talks with Russia are still on reducing the total number of nuclear devises. The numbers talked most recently weren't as high as some hoped they would be, and the implimentation wasn't the same.

The policy of nuclear deterence is still the primary US policy, but I don't forsee the "nuclear option" being implimented. There is no positive aspect to the use of nuclear weapons.

Finally, at least we can account for all of our nukes. That can't be said of the former Soviet nuclear weapons. Of course, it can't be said for the US nuclear delivery technology either. :(

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

Skywalker, On NPR we'll just have to agree to disagree :D
As Comander-in-Chief who ever holds the office of President of the United States has to be prepared to use Nuclear Weapons. Having said that I wouldn't fear a Nuclear launch, 11 Sept, 2001, handed the USA the greatest single excuse to use nuclear weapons in our lifetime. But we didn't use them, the current operation Anaconda would be a perfect use for Tact Nukes. A small confinded area, mountainous region, surface blasts not air blasts to limit the radiation coverage area. But we aren't going to use them there either. Nukes are a weapon of total war and will be used IF and only IF they are used against the USA, or another weapon of mass destuction is used.

Here is a site about Nukes
http://www.nukefix.org/weapon.html

From what I could tell in a quick scan of the page if the average nuke hit downtown Barre, air blast at 3,000 ft. Norwich would have it windows knocked out, you'd get a sunburn, and you wouldn't want to look at the blast. :D (couldn't remember how far Middlebury is from Barre)
If I remember correctly in order to double the blast radius you have quadripble the yield size. ie: (example ONLY) .5 mile radius=20kt, 1 mile radius=80kt, 2 mile radius=320 kt, 4 mile radius=1.28 mt.
If you live in a big city, well you have about 18-25 minutes of warning time to get the "hell out of Dodge".
Thank God I'm a country boy :D

Don't get me wrong nukes are extremely destructive, but they are NOT the end of the world.

At its present state Russia could blow up Earth 7 times, Russian scientists became baffled when they finally realized that Earth could only be destroyed once... :D :D :D

That could be a good reason why we're tying to cutt them down, EH?!

The US doesnt have nearly that many weapons, what is sad, is that if Russia had spent is money more on aiding th epeople than multiplying the number of times it could blow up earth, its people wouldnt be even half as bad as they are now. :( Low economy and everything all created by US pressure :(

hmm... well whatever..

The fallout's the worst thing about nukes, not the initial blast. The survivors are sometimes worse off than the dead.


Mark

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by skywalker:
The fallout's the worst thing about nukes, not the initial blast. The survivors are sometimes worse off than the dead.


Mark<hr></blockquote>
No agrugement here Mark.

Reflex in the sky warn you you're gonna die
Storm coming, you'd better hide from the atomic tide
Flashes in the sky turns houses into sties
Turns people into clay, radiation minds decay

Robot minds of robot slaves lead them to atomic rage
plastic flowers, melting sun, fading moon falls upon
dying world of radiation, victims of mad frustration
Burning globe of oxy'n fire, like electric funeral pyre

Buildings crashing down to a cracking ground
Rivers turn to wood, ice melting to flood
Earth lies in death bed, clouds cry water dead
Tearing life away, here's the burning pay


A cheerful little ditty [img]tongue.gif[/img] Lets all drink to nuclear weapons! [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color=skyblue>
Hey L.o.A.!

Come by my place next weekend and we will dig a hole big enough for two families to hide in!

You bring the beer.

I'll supply the tools.

</font>