It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Rumsfeld Seeks to Revive Burrowing Nuclear Bomb

page: 4
0
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 04:46 PM

Think about it...Since nukes were developed there has been no war that comes even close to either WW, which was becoming the norm for the 20th century.

.........................YET Give America Time, most of the planet will be barter Town ! "We dont need another hero"!

posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 05:07 PM
Nuclear weapons will cause nuclear war. Of that you can be certain.

Consider the case of ten nuclear nations, each of whom is sufficiently peaceful that they would only initiate a nuclear strike once in 300 years. Now to remove statisical variances, let's consider such nations during a long period of say, 900 years.

With this simple premise, we see that in our 900 year period, each nation would on average initiate three nuclear strikes during the period (900/3=3). With ten nuclear nations, this would result in 30 nuclear first-strikes during the 900-year period (10*3=30).

With 30 first-strikes over 900 years, we have an average of one nuclear strike per 30 years (900/30=30), even in the face of extreme peacefulness in each of the ten nations. Resisting nuclear use for 300 years is an experiment that has never been done anywhere by any nation, mind you.

Let's assume there are only eight participating nuclear nations. The math works the same. 900/3=3; 8*3=24; 900/24=37.5. So an eight-nation world will have an average of one nuclear first use every 37.5 years.

It has been sixty years since Hiroshima and proliferation is now just getting ramped up.

If you think resarching new nukes is smart, you are condemning the human race to pain unlike anything seen in thousands of years. Controlling nukes is the single most important goal every person on earth must dedicate themselves to. Humanity is collectively standing inside a bear-trap and if we twitch, it'll bite our legs off. We'll live, but we won't be the same species.

[edit on 2-2-2005 by smallpeeps]

posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 05:12 PM

Originally posted by instar

Think about it...Since nukes were developed there has been no war that comes even close to either WW, which was becoming the norm for the 20th century.

.........................YET Give America Time, most of the planet will be barter Town ! "We dont need another hero"!

Why does it have to be America

To be honest, the US has the most to lose of any of the nuclear powers and the least to gain.

I would say the most likely power to use nukes would be North Korea by far, followed by Russia and China.

And yes, this does include Isreal. They will need to get permission from the US before they go nuclear, or the US will stop sending them money which keeps their nation alive. The US will not allow Isreal to go nuclear unless Isreal is attacked unprovoked and has no other option.

posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 05:14 PM
Smallpeeps...

You assume that a major nation would use them. That assumption was tested during the cold war, and was proven false. If it was ging to happen between two great powers, it would have in those 50 years.

posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 05:44 PM

If it was ging to happen between two great powers, it would have in those 50 years.

Everyone hopes you are right. The numbers however, say otherwise.

An interesting example is that of the Challenger disaster. When Richard Feynman investigated the NASA engineers claims prior to the O-ring failure, he found outrageous numbers in relation to the probability of a shuttle-launch accident. They pointed to their history of no failures just as you are doing. They'd say things like "The chances of failure are roughly .001 percent and as proof, no shuttle has ever crashed" These men had no understanding of simple estimation of "Time to Failure". It should have been obvious to them the SOME shuttle would crash.

Unlike the space program, a crash with nukes will be catastrophic unlike anything we can possibly imagine. We cannot test nuclear failure, so we have to use statical analysis to define the components of nuclear peacfulness that are required. Say what you will, if ten nations existed, this scenario shows that they would have to be AT LEAST peaceful enough to avoid nuclear first use every 300 years if they do not want an average of one strike per thirty years.

The numbers do not lie.

The nuclear problem is a system. It is not a collection of isolated bombs sitting in silos. It is an interconnected system and every player that enters the game weakens the system and causes entropy until finally, the system fails.

Anyone who believes 300 years of nuclear peace is possible for ten nations who don't really like each other is cognitively dissonant. Even if it IS possible, we can still plan for a first use every 30 or 40 years.

posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 05:52 PM
I understand your point, and believe me - I understand the grave threat of accidental launch, and escalation to nucler weapons.

But I think in nuclear war, if the only ones that can wage it are the major world powers, the human factor is an asset rather then a problem. For instance, there were many instances when the US detected full out nuclear first strike by the USSR. The interesting thing is that rather then "jump the gun" and return fire, they stalled as long as they could, giving themselves enough time to figure out that it was a false alarm.

To me, a major country won't use nuclear first strike - the leaders have too much to lose (their money, power, relatives, friends, and own lives). Like I said, I think the biggest threat of nuclear war is a medium/small power country gaining nuclear power, as they often are ruled by a single man who is more likely to use the weapon.

posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 05:53 PM

Why does it have to be America

Because America is the most gung ho bunch of shoot em up cowboys on the planet and because America is the one meddling in other nations affairs under the guise of bringing democracy. because America is the most likely nation to use a nuke having set an example in japan, that said "were not afraid to use them".
The situation or circumstances dont make a difference to rest who will panic when a nuke goes off and launch themselves. George Bush IS capable of decideing to use a nuke, thats why. especially with the likes of Rumsfeld jerking him off, not to mention cheyney *spell.

[edit on 052828p://54025 by instar]

posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 06:00 PM
I posted this before, but it's relevant here also:

The main collar on nuclear war is Deterrence. This is where your enemy is convinced that retaliation will result in their destruction, ergo do not launch. Deterrence is mathematically infinite in a military planner's mind. In reality however, it is eroded by factors such as 1: Irrationality, and 2: Decision-Making. For example, we assume in deterrence theory that Hitler would be rational and not _want_ Berlin to be flattened in retaliatory strikeage. Sometimes this idea fails (as in Hitler's case). An example of Deterrence failing due to decision-making would be where the joint chiefs or whomever do not have sufficient time or circumstance to correctly evaluate the threat and therefore decide to launch, just to be sure. Deterrence-Pure is eroded by these two factors.

There are other collars on nuclear use related to Civility of nations. The primary four components of Civility are 1: Morality ("It is wrong to kill. Societal norms have established this") 2: Friendship ("I would certainly never kill friends. If others are sufficiently friendly, I will not kill.") 3: War-Weariness ("I am not disposed to the idea of fighting. I wish to compromise and simply find peace at any level.") 4: Absolute-Controls ("Nuclear weapons are automated. The decision is out of our hands entirely."). Any of these four factors (together comprising 'Civility') could fail, but ALL of them must fail for Civility to fail, if you follow.

So the two primary collars or restraints on nuclear warfare are Deterrence and Civility. The great thing about these is that there has to be a point where they ALL fail. There has to be a moment where morality, friendship, war-weariness and deterrence all break down for a nuclear launch to occur. Reasoning that such a moment is unlikely, we could safely relax for twenty more years or whatever and not worry (unless we happen to care about the world our children/grandchildren will inhabit).

Unfortunately, nuclear use due to accident is much more likely. accidental usage does not have any of the restraints mentioned in the factors above. In fact, it's worse because accidental usage can come fom a number of fronts. Accidents can and do happen.

Accident can come from any of four factors, 1: Command (rogue commander launches his missles without authorization), 2:Control (electronic failure, plane crash w/ nuclear weapons) 3: Communications (false communication of attack resulting in counterattack) and 4: Intelligence (false information of impending attack resulting in counterattack).

If ANY of these factors fails, retaliation can be assumed.

Then realize that these factors are multiplied by the number of participating nuclear nations. Pakistan must preserve levels of reliability in the above-mentioned factors that are equally high as it's global neighbors. If either India or Pakistan fails to correctly understand all of these factors, the results are obvious. Massive pain and death in epoch-ending amounts.

Now imagine nuclear proliferation occurring at its current rate. Brazil, Japan, Saudi Arabia etc. Each of these future nuclear countries would be like another whole set of factors placed upon the back of humanity.

Nuclear proliferation is suicide for everyone, including those rich elites who aim to survive. NOTE TO THESE: Unless you brainwash your children too, they will hate you for your actions when you finally open the vault and emerge.

Nuclear weapons protect nothing.

[All this stuff can be investigated here: www.nukefix.org...]

[edit on 2-2-2005 by smallpeeps]

posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 07:25 PM

Originally posted by instar

Why does it have to be America

Because America is the most gung ho bunch of shoot em up cowboys on the planet and because America is the one meddling in other nations affairs under the guise of bringing democracy. because America is the most likely nation to use a nuke having set an example in japan, that said "were not afraid to use them".
The situation or circumstances dont make a difference to rest who will panic when a nuke goes off and launch themselves. George Bush IS capable of decideing to use a nuke, thats why. especially with the likes of Rumsfeld jerking him off, not to mention cheyney *spell.

[edit on 052828p://54025 by instar]

That is the worst argument I have ever heard in my life. America is a bunch of "shoot 'em up cowboys" ehhh? How ignorant - how pathetically ignorant.

Then you accuse America of mettling in others affairs. Well, sorry buddy, but when Saddam decided to invade our ally, Kuwait, he made Iraq our buisness. Then when he was defeated, he signed a peace treaty which had conditions clear for all to see. He then broke thus terms of peace, so we did what was to be expected, instead of cowering under the defiant words of a dictator.

And hey - I mean, we really nuked them into oblivion now, didn't we? Just like we did in Korea, and 'Nam, and the first GW.

It is complete BS - everything you said. The US used nukes 60 years ago - it was the first and only time they have been used. That does not set any precident for the US as trigger happy with nukes. Quite the opposite - we used them against an enemy who attacked us first, and havent used them since.

Bush CAN NOT decide to use nukes on his own. That would require congressional support in a decleration of war. The only time a president can make the call is when we are already under attack, and that would be confirmed by the military before he could make a move.

In short, you have no idea what you are talking about, but your rabid hatred for Bush and America has allowed you t shoot of your mouth.

posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 07:47 PM
Well bottom line, we will never know when our own president will turn wacko and decides to nuke the planet.

That is a risk we have to face with each administration.

By the way American Mad Man you don't have to insult others to prove your point.

posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 07:59 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
By the way American Mad Man you don't have to insult others to prove your point.

How did I insult him?

I called him ignorant, which he clearly is if he believes all Americans are trigger happy cowboys and the president can just nuke someone when ever he wants.

Personally, I AM INSULTED at being stereotyped as a trigger happy American Cowboy. But then again, I guess it is OK to do that, as long as you don't call someone a French surrender monkey, or a drunk Irishman etc etc etc

Why don't you get on his case, OK?

posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 08:05 PM

we will never know when our own president will turn wacko and decides to nuke the planet

Not to be a crusader or anything, but...

'Nuking the planet' is the sort of phrasal-unfocusing of your mind that your teachers and television want you to do. It keeps you from analyzing the nuclear problem and (horror) deciding to assert yourself as a human being on planet earth. The term rolls off the lips very easily like the constantly uttered affirmations in Huxley's Brave New World. Propagating that phrase doesn't do any good. The problem can be broken down and understood if people have the interest.

Nuclear war won't be nearly that quick or painless. There will be lots of survivors and they will die a multitude of horrible deaths. Abstractions like 'Nuclear Winter' are absurd lullabyes.

Here's a link to what California will look like, according to FEMA:

posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 08:22 PM

Originally posted by American Mad Man
How did I insult him?

I called him ignorant, which he clearly is if he believes all Americans are trigger happy cowboys and the president can just nuke someone when ever he wants.

You should not feel ofended by such a coment I am American and you are an American we are not trigger happy people.Right?

Personally, I AM INSULTED at being stereotyped as a trigger happy American Cowboy.

You should not be you are not a cowboy even when that is how bush is stereotyped and called trigger happy that does not mean you or me.

But then again, I guess it is OK to do that, as long as you don't call someone a French surrender monkey, or a drunk Irishman etc etc etc

Well is not ok, and I actually have nothing against the french or any other bush targeted country that decides to go against his wishes.

Why don't you get on his case, OK?

I don't need too. See some people is better to just ignore sometimes, and take their coments very light, or you will end up been to strong on your post and be the one to carry the red flag.

You are not a trigger happy cowboy, so ignore the coment and prove him wrong.

By the way happy bday.

[edit on 2-2-2005 by marg6043]

posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 08:58 PM
Let me provide you with some common sense mr. mulder.

Do not think for an instant that countries like China, USSR, France et al. are not working on the same technology or have something similar. The U.S. needs to always remain at the top in military technology because our mere presence as a superpower prevents really bad things from happening. Taiwan for instance would already have been "liberated" by China. Saddam would have control of Kuwait and with that revenue would have probably annexed parts of Saudi Arabia. Crises in the oil region would have created conflicts elsewhere. Those are just a few examples.

We do not want single dictators in charge of nuclear weapons. Even the presidents and prime ministers of major nuclear equipped nations...including China, have to jump through very tightly controlled procedures in order to "use" a nuclear device. No I dont want a guy in the desert to have a bad day and decide to use his nuclear arsenal in a moment of jihad.

Double standards are a necessity and 9 out of 10 intelligent people agree. That is why the international community is working hard to prevent nuclear proliferation.

posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 10:32 PM
Greatpost Fawlty

Basically the same thing I have been saying.

There are some countries that are at the point where they can be trusted to own nuclear weapons because they would not use them unless the circumstances were dire.

Then there are dictatorships with guys like Kim in control of North Korea, which happens to have one of the largest armies in the world. These types of guys can't be trusted.

posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 10:42 PM

Even the presidents and prime ministers of major nuclear equipped nations...including China, have to jump through very tightly controlled procedures in order to "use" a nuclear device.

Yes, there are definate protocols in place, but they are based on several factors. Communication can break down. Control can also beak down.

By saying, "My nation is smart and therefore needs to be the boss of nuclear weapons!" you are suggesting that nuclear weapons are good things, which they are not.

Here's some quotes from www.nukefix.org:

On March 28, in the Wall Street Journal [p. A16] in James T. Hackett's article, "Russia's Big Bang", messages of warning came from a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, Bruce Blair, and a former Reagan administration official and now defense consultant, James Hackett.

As Hackett stated, on March 13 Bruce Blair "told a House National Security subcommittee that Russian control over its nuclear arsenal is tottering on the brink of collapse" and warned that "Russia's command and control system has practically gone 'belly-up' [emphasis added]."

Further, Hackett pointed out that on March 15, in Moscow's Komsomolskaya Pravda, Col. Robert Bykov (retired from the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces) warned that "an accidental nuclear launch at the U.S. could happen at any time, in a matter of seconds" and that, "On more than one occasion, parts of the system spontaneously went into 'combat mode' ."

As Hackett observed: "Col. Bykov describes one incident in which a missile-control duty officer was close to madness and had to be hospitalized. He describes another case in which a 'smart aleck' in a missile regiment figured out how to bring the launch contact points together, making it possible to launch a missile without the launch code [emphasis added]." Hackett repeated the observation that others have also made that: "General Staff officers have not been paid for up to three months, missile officers are moonlighting, and psychological breakdowns are occurring."

While all of this, if accurate, is a cause for deep concern, we find certain features that reveal similarities to past U.S. experience. As the political scientist, Scott Sagan, in Limits of Safety, pointed out:

"Minuteman ICBM officers [in one instance at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis] jerry-rigged an independent launch capability with inadequate safeguards. . . . "

"Both men suggested that the personnel in the single launch control center held the capability to fire the missiles in an unauthorized manner. According to these individuals: 'We didn't literally "hot wire" the launch command system that would be the wrong analogy but we did have a second key. . . . I could have launched it on my own, if I had wanted to.' [ F&S, p. 213]"

Think about what you are saying. If you have children, nieces, nephews, whatever, think about their hopes of avoiding nuclear war. You cannot seriously hold that nuclear weapons have any place on earth. They are a scorpion in humanity's collective bed.

[edit on 2-2-2005 by smallpeeps]

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:22 AM
Nowhere in my post did I say nuclear weapons were a good thing. I did imply that more nuclear weapons in the hands of dictators would not improve the stability of peace in the world. You think control is bad in Russia....imagine the vulnerability of nuclear weapons in the hands of less than stable regimes. How about we not add to the problems we already face by preventing dictators from acquiring nuclear weapons.

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:49 AM

Originally posted by TRUTH AmbassadorI'm not holding my breath but the more time goes by without an attack the more I begin to think that maybe the terrorist are beginning to look at Iraq as a lost cause. Then again they are probably just taking time off to plan how they will mess up the election results to spark off a civil war.

History is usually the best indicator in these matters. It tends to repeat itself, especially when you ignore it. If you go back to the British occupation at the dawn of the 1900's, they were exactly where we now are. The Iraqis.. Mesopotamian's, are an ancient people and very patient. They drove out the Brits, the world's great power, as implausible an outcome as that seemed at the time. But only time will tell.

I'll tell ya what, all that aside. I went over there to fight them in the Gulf War, full of gusto and fire for the job. I now feel no animosity or malice towards them. Only pity. I would love for Iraq to become a stable and prosperous nation once again. I would love to go back and see it rebuilt. A restored Baghdad would be a beautiful site to see.

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 09:15 AM

Originally posted by fawlty
The U.S. needs to always remain at the top in military technology because our mere presence as a superpower prevents really bad things from happening.

Yes, there is truth in this statement.

Saddam would have control of Kuwait and with that revenue would have probably annexed parts of Saudi Arabia.

This is a poor example. If George H. W. Bush and his Ambassador April Glaspie had not first baited Saddam, giving him the wink and nod of approval for his invasion ("We have no position on your Arab/Arab conflict..") Saddam would not have invaded. It should also be noted that Kuwait and Iraq were embroiled in an economic war that was pinching the hell outta Saddam. He warned Kuwait to back off; yet, Kuwait, knowing the USA would come to the rescue (and we'd get our bases onto Saudi soil), kept hammering him. They were not the victims Bush's PR machine made them out to be.

We do not want single dictators in charge of nuclear weapons.

What, like W. Bush?
Oh, that's right.. Rummy and Tricky Dick are really in charge.

No I dont want a guy in the desert to have a bad day and decide to use his nuclear arsenal in a moment of jihad.

Some guy in the desert? You mean a hand-picked CIA stooge.That's a pretty jingoistic statement if I ever heard one. Before the Kuwait invasion, Saddam never did anything (on that level) that wasn't approved in Washington, D.C. first. After the invasion, Saddam realized he'd been duped and chose to fight back.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 09:27 AM
Not trigger happy? O..K.
These stats would appear to indicate otherwise to most folk!

* Private Firearm Ownership in the U.S. as of 1997

# of Guns # of Owners
All Firearms 200-240 Million 60-65 Million
Handguns 75-80 Million 30-35 Million

www.justfacts.com...

0