It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Should we get rid of our nukes? (America)

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Why won't Iran allow the IAEA to inspect their sites?

-this would show proof that the US is wrong and enable Iran to go about it's business.

Why won't Iran use light water reactors?

-the spent fuel can not be used to produce enriched uranium and enable Iran to go about is business.

Why won't Iran withdraw from the NPT?

-Then Iran can build all the nukes it wants.




posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I agree with Nephyx 100% & he gets my Way Above vote. I'd only add that not only the USA, but the entire world, needs to disarm nuclear weapons of all varieties and safeguard against their development for all time.

Until humanity turns its 'weapons to plowshares' we're a doomed species. You can argue we need big sticks to threaten each other. But for how long do you think the world can survive playing nuclear chicken?

You may regurgitate tabloid arguments all day and feel smug like you've made some amazing insight for us all. But when you support nuclear weapons, you are playing with a losing hand. How long until practically every nation has nuclear weapons? 5 years, 10 years? 25 years? Sooner or later Iran will have them, Brazil will have them, even the most mundane countries (such as Canada - oops you already have 2nd hand USA nukes) will have their hands on some kind of nukes within the next few decades. How long do you think the USA can hold back this tide while other nuclear nations secretly share technology and weapons? It is a losing hand.

Ask yourself, who has used nuclear weapons in war? The only answer is the USA. You dropped 2 badboys on Japan, DU in Iraq 1, Afghanistan, and the 'mini-nuke' Bunker Busters have contaminated swathes of Iraq's urban areas in Bush War 2. Of course USA are being utter hypocrites regarding nuclear weapons and this further enrages those without them.

You can say the arguments for disarmament are simplistic & naive. You would so quickly slamdunk World Peace in the 'too hard' basket? Disarmament is complex only because it forces us to confront our true enemy... those individuals & corporations within our own societies who actively profit from perpetual apathy, fear, and war. These entities feed us with one hand and slap us with the other. We can never disarm while our Governments are suffocated within the Iron Triangle, and I think that's the crux of the issue.

The original Americans knew how to think seven generations a.. (snip) If we continue playing nuclear chicken, then the forecast is for clouds of the mushroom variety.

[edit on 6-9-2006 by Shar_Chi]

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by mrwupy]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
and the 'mini-nuke' Bunker Busters have contaminated swathes of Iraq's urban areas in Bush War 2.


Mini nukes bunker busters? Where does it say that we used those? Got proof of that?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Bunker busters were widely reported being used in Iraq. There are currently 2 main types of bunker busters: conventional & nuclear. During the last iraq war i was watching the news channels a fair bit, one particular report (bbc world i think) was talking about areas in Baghdad no one could enter due to contamination linked to bunker busters & i assumed at the time they had begun deploying the B61-11 Tactical Nuke.

We all know they exist & the USAF has tested them, although whether they were used in Iraq is debatable. Perhaps the report was incorrect & the contamination was from DU. Point taken I have no proof on that call, no idea where to find that particular news item (although i may have taped it somewhere), and tbh I don't intend to get close enough to get a first hand report



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Once again the delusional individuals come out of the wood work and spout made up facts without any proof.

'mini-nuke bunker busters being used in Iraq'



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Yeah, it is so far-fetched isn't it... not in our lifetime right?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
(snip)

Well, THAT wasn't very nice.

I think a little more tact and a little less potty mouthed sarcasm might cause people to take you a bit more seriously.


[edit on 7-9-2006 by mrwupy]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Why won't Iran allow the IAEA to inspect their sites?

-this would show proof that the US is wrong and enable Iran to go about it's business.

Why won't Iran use light water reactors?

-the spent fuel can not be used to produce enriched uranium and enable Iran to go about is business.

Why won't Iran withdraw from the NPT?

-Then Iran can build all the nukes it wants.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
no we (the usa) shouldnt get rid of our nukes.

there is only one way i see this happening, and that is on another country.

so i once again will say, no we shouldnt get rid of our nukes.

peace



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Why won't Iran allow the IAEA to inspect their sites?

-this would show proof that the US is wrong and enable Iran to go about it's business.

Why won't Iran use light water reactors?

-the spent fuel can not be used to produce enriched uranium and enable Iran to go about is business.

Why won't Iran withdraw from the NPT?

-Then Iran can build all the nukes it wants.



1. Because if the IAEA had unlimited access, and saw that there were more than peaceful enery research going on, the political righteousnous card iran continues to play will be null and void.
No more talks, no more nothing, it will be a clear indiciation that all this time they were stalling.
If there was NOTHING IN THERE, id assume theyd ALLOW anyone to inspect, to SHOW the world being wrong.

NPT? again another technical political card played
Iran wants us to think, simply because they signed that piece of paper, it prohibits them from following the nuclear path..
Im pretty sure Hitler signed an agreement stating he had no desire to invade eastern europe... that sure turned out to be truthful eh?... all it really did was shut up the nay sayers who didnt agree with hitlers actions, because neough of the public would be taken hook line and sinker.

Anyone who believe iran, when they say they want PEACEFUL nuclear energy is dreaming. plain and simple.

A country that wants PEACE, and research doesnt go down the path Iran is going down.
theres no DIRE consequence if they DONT research it NOW...
They could hold on for another year and then reserach, after having convinced the world of there real intentions ' if it indeed was peaceful '

Either he's acting tough and defiant to appear like the big kid on the block.. or he's actually tough and defiant and hell bent on nuclear weapons.

EITHER WAY, we cannot have a man of either the above stature incharge of nuclear energy. He deserves to get a beating.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by nephyx
Okay I have been doing alot of thinking about the middle east crisis with lebannon and Iran etc.. The UN is having a very difficult time coming to a resolution in regards to the nuclear crisis with Iran. My question is, how can the United States as well as Isreal preach to Iran when they knowingly posess nuclear weapons?

If we were to get rid of our bombs and then allow the UN inspectors to come and verify that we are dearmed then we could begin REASONABLE negotiations with other countries. If the rest of the world saw that we were taking steps to set an example to the rest of the world then it would be much easier for the UN to target rogue countries who are developing these weapons.

Lets say we dearmed and then we found out later that Iran was developing a nuclear bomb. Do you really think the UN would let them get away with it then? how would the world feel if we got attacked by a nuke knowing that we threw ours away? I guess what im trying to say is that if we really want support from the rest of the world we need to take certain steps to ensure that. One vital step would be the disarming of nuclear weapons and relying solely on our military might.

Noone should hide behind behind threats of nuclear weapons. I wish these bombs never even existed. I think the only way to achieve common ground with the rest of the world is to show them that we understand that having ANY nukes is wrong, and it will only cause future destruction.


I have one word to say to you

"Deterrent"

Thats all they are, and we should have a catch phrase, "We Reserve the Right to Nuke you at any Time"



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   
I can see where America deserves to have the bomb, but Israel does not. In these times of who did what, I would rather have my bombs pointed towards everyone just in case. Iran does not pose a threat to the world, not know and not tomorrow.
In a different case away from nuke bombs, Iran as a religion does pose a question.

Most of the kids that post on ATS did not grow up with duck and cover and the mutation movies of the 50's and 60's. I think AMerica needs to redo all its nukes to better operate in a changing world. If we need to nuke other countries, because of problems that cannot be worked out, then that is what happens in a real world.

America never ever needs to do away with its most valuable jewel, the Nuke.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Iran does have a light water reactor in Bushewar

Edit: Currently under construction by contract to the Russians

[edit on 7/9/2006 by simo]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
Bunker busters were widely reported being used in Iraq. There are currently 2 main types of bunker busters: conventional & nuclear. During the last iraq war i was watching the news channels a fair bit, one particular report (bbc world i think) was talking about areas in Baghdad no one could enter due to contamination linked to bunker busters & i assumed at the time they had begun deploying the B61-11 Tactical Nuke.

We all know they exist & the USAF has tested them, although whether they were used in Iraq is debatable. Perhaps the report was incorrect & the contamination was from DU. Point taken I have no proof on that call, no idea where to find that particular news item (although i may have taped it somewhere), and tbh I don't intend to get close enough to get a first hand report


The bold part is complete and total BS. At least do a Google search before posting something like this. There is only one "main" bunker buster, the GBU-28, and it's full of TNT and aluminum, and DU can be added to increase the weight, which increases penetration before detonation. There is no "nuclear bunker buster"; you're thinking of tactical nukes. And I didn't have to watch the news to know this; I helped pick up the pieces in a few places, and I'm not glowing. No nukes are being dropped on Iraq.

As to the subject at hand, it would be perfect if we could magically erase all nuclear weapons from the planet, but we've all seen that Walgreen's commercial; this isn't perfect. They're out there, and no gesture of good will is going to convince every country to give 'em up. As long as one country has them, another country will want them as a deterrent, and another, and so on.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Got wiki?



The B61 nuclear bomb is the primary thermonuclear weapon in the U.S. Enduring Stockpile following the end of the Cold War...
The newest variant is the B61 Mod 11, deployed in 1997, which is a ground-penetrating bunker buster.

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm totally against nukes, but the businessman in me has spotted a niche market selling pompoms & streamers to the nuclear cheersquad around here.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
Got wiki?



The B61 nuclear bomb is the primary thermonuclear weapon in the U.S. Enduring Stockpile following the end of the Cold War...
The newest variant is the B61 Mod 11, deployed in 1997, which is a ground-penetrating bunker buster.

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm totally against nukes, but the businessman in me has spotted a niche market selling pompoms & streamers to the nuclear cheersquad around here.


Sigh...this is a good wiki definition of the B61, I guess, but that doesn't make it the "main" bunker buster we're using in Iraq.

I'm getting a .ache.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I'm sure the west and the rest of the main players will be happy to get rid of Nuke weapons, Just as soon as they discover a way that kills more people more effeciantly and with less fall out.

The nuclear club has been exclusive for half a century thanks to the technology gap. The tech gap is now rapidly disappearing.

It's a scary time to be alive.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
I'm sure the west and the rest of the main players will be happy to get rid of Nuke weapons, Just as soon as they discover a way that kills more people more effeciantly and with less fall out.

The nuclear club has been exclusive for half a century thanks to the technology gap. The tech gap is now rapidly disappearing.

It's a scary time to be alive.


I just try to sit back and enjoy it. Sounds horrible but its true.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
A small history of micro-nukes and there uses and places.

www.vialls.com...
On 23 March, Tom Valentine of Radio Free America interviewed veteran nuclear physicist Galen Winsor, who said the blast was not caused by a low-yield conventional explosive charge. Galen Winsor went much further than this. "I'm sure it was just exactly what John McPhee predicted 20 years ago in his book, The Curve of Binding Energy" he said, "where McPhee quoted Theodore B. Taylor, a theoretical physicist out of Los Alamos, who said that someone someday was going to blow up the World Trade Centre with a small nuclear device, the size of a stick of gum." Winsor continued, "McPhee's book was published in 1975, although the prediction first appeared in the New Yorker magazine in 1973. Taylor worked in the area of the micronization of nuclear weapons, in other words making nuclear weapons small enough so the Israelis could carry them around in a briefcase."

www.wired.com...
The B61-11 is the most recent device added to the U.S. nuclear arsenal since 1989, according to the story.
It was developed and deployed secretly. The U.S. military sneaked it past test and development treaties, as well as public and congressional debate, by defining the B61-11 as an adaptation of a pre-treaty technology rather than a new development.
www.vialls.com...
Five microseconds passed while this fission monster from hell expanded, then the already-cooling fireball tore its angry way out into the street above, vaporizing all victims standing within thirty feet while simultaneously spreading two tons of deadly microscopic roadbed shrapnel in a lethal arc across Kuta Beach. Every survivor standing in direct line-of-sight of its awesome ultraviolet emission received terrible flash burns, the like of which three eminent Australian burns surgeons would later claim on TV they “had never seen before”.
Less than ten-millionths of a second after the monster achieved critical mass, its searing thermal wave set fire to twenty-seven buildings in the immediate area, and spontaneously ignited automobiles parked two blocks away from ground zero. But as you will read later in this report, no ordinary Geiger counter from any nation could detect radiation from the weapon.
www.worldnetdaily.com...
During the clinton years a banned had been in place but cheney and powell were both behind the scenes devloping the micro-nuke.

vialls.net...
This a take on Iraq and possible use of micro-nukes there?
Phase one of the multiple attacks launched in Baghdad, Mosul, Baquba, Ramadi and Fallujah, all commenced within 50 seconds of each other, an impossible task without the use of synchronized chronometers or indirect radio commands by military experts. Out of the initial five explosions, two were micro nuclear, as shown in the photographs at the top of this page. This bring to nine the known total number of micro nuclear devices detonated underground since American forces first approached Baghdad in early 2003.
Desperate to convince the American public that this was just another "bad day in Iraq", New York media spin-doctors used phony 'Islamic' web sites to falsely claim responsibility on behalf of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Mossad-created phantom terrorist allegedly belonging to the Mossad-created phantom terrorist organization 'al Qaeda'. Dick Cheney still believes in al Qaeda of course, which is hardly surprising when one recognizes the harsh reality that Dick has personally worked for the Mossad for more than ten years.
Very strange indeed if Cheney is a Mossad agent!




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join