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.

 

30 countries could have nukes soon

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   
There are numerous countries in various stages of nuke development right now. Some are signatories to weapons treaties, and have peaceful nuclear programs, but could quickly switch their programs over if they felt it necessary. Some of the other countries intentions are not so clear.
 



news.yahoo.com
Canada, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland, Taiwan, Spain, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Lithuania are among nations that either have the means to produce weapons-grade uranium if they chose, could quickly build such technology, or could use plutonium waste for weaponization. All are committed non-nuclear weapons states, and no one has suggested they want to use their programs for arms.

Japan also says it has no plans to develop atomic weapons, but it could make them at short notice by processing tons of plutonium left over from running its nuclear reactors. South Korea also has spent reactor fuel and was found a few years ago to have conducted small-scale secret experiments on making highly enriched uranium that would be usable in warheads.

Other countries considering developing nuclear programs in the near future are Egypt, Bangladesh, Ghana, Indonesia, Jordan, Namibia, Moldova, Nigeria, Poland, Thailand, Turkey, Vietnam and Yemen, U.N. officials say.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Well it's finally happening. The thing many of us have feared for years. Nuclear weapons technology is proliferating rapidly. I guess the genie could only be kept in the bottle so long.

It will soon become apparent whether the human race can find a way to eradicate war, or whether war will eradicate us! There should be such a fear of these weapons that war would become unthinkable. Much like the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction from the Cold War Era. Unfortunately, many of these countries governments may not be stable enough to guarantee a rational approach to a volatile situation. Or, for that matter, to defend against a coup. Which could leave those weapons in the hands of a mad man and/or terrorists!

The world has gotten smaller in so many ways. It could have done without this one.

Related News Links:
en.wikipedia.org




posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Good find.


Bad situation.


Sounds like the world needs an anti-proliferation treaty for nuclear weapons.


Wait! ...Didn't we have one?




posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Yes, out of the bottle now. Every nation will believe they require deliverable atomics for security. Accidents happen.

Perhaps, we'll be fortunate and the initial post "WWII" use of nuclear weapons on humans will be so repulsive that a MAD "pulp fiction" guns-on-each-other scenario won't occur. Scared-straight for another 60 years or so, until people forget the lessons of the past. It really does just seem a matter of time... very sad and human.

Victor K.

43'

[edit on 17-10-2006 by V Kaminski]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Yeah, I guess the problem was actually implementing it (NPT). History will probably have something to say about how the ball got dropped.

That's right, there may not be a history of these events!


[edit on 17-10-2006 by HimWhoHathAnEar]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   
It would be interesting to see what would happen if Canada were to create nuclear weapons. I wonder if the US government's reaction would be the same as their policy on Iran or if they would support Canada's actions.

An interesting piece of knowledge I've learned from my brilliant history proffessor is that invasions will almost always occur from a North territory/country trying to invade the South. I guess with Alaska there, US would be able to keep Canada's powers in check.

Any thoughts on this from anyone else?

[edit on 17-10-2006 by DJMessiah]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   


It would be interesting to see what would happen if Canada were to create nuclear weapons.


Raises a lot of interesting questions. Especially if Islam were to gain greater control of the country.

But with so many going nuclear just multiply those questions times 30/60/90........ The world is relatively tame at the moment I'm thinking. Batten down the hatchs!



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Umm, Afghanistan and Iraq as well as Iran are all North of US in relation to geography. Lebanon is North of Israel. North Korea was also north of America during that "time".

what about East West?

Oh well, the sooner we all die as a result of whatever, the sooner planet Earth can get back on track to the NATURAL order of things. It does not really worry me at all, at least a nuclear death is instant. Unfortunately I would not want to be the one outside of the blast radius that suffers the next few years in agonizing pain.

Hey, did not the bible say that the world would never be destroyed by water again, but rather fire?

Hmm what kind of weapons proliferating rapidly across the globe could subject the planet and all of human kind to the destruction of fire?

Hey Messiah, what does the Quran say about the destruction/cleansing of evil of the world in the end times? Is there any equivelant to Revelations in your book?

[edit on 10/17/2006 by DYepes]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
The final day, in Islam, is the 'Day of Judgement' where all bodies will be resurrected and questioned by God for their actions in life.

Muslims do believe that Isa (Jesus) will return to kill the anti-Christ, but we don't believe that this is the "last day" of Earth as Christians believe. We believe that after the anti-Christ has been killed, there will be a large period of peace in the world.

I wouldn't consider Iran and Afghanistan as invaders to the US, as "northern" countries, since they're completely on the other side of the world. What my proffessor implied was direct North of a country/territory. Such as the point in history where it was N.America vs S. America, Texas (US) vs Mexico, Canada's rule under France vs the US, North Korea vs South Korea (in the Korean war), Russia vs Afghanistan, and so on.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by DJMessiah]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Oh right, forgive me for my misinterpretation. That does make alot more sense.

All I can say is, and I am sure you can agree to this, I look forward to the end of days, I don't fear it. The end is inevitable after all. Better to meet it fearlessly head on with your faith to support you, then to cower in it blindly turning your eye away from God.

I think the more nukes there are out there the less likely any war will break out anyways.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
No problem


My concern isn't really for the Day of Judgement, but here and now. What matters is how you live your life, how you help your fellow man, and what you learn in life.

Everyone having nukes would work, logically, but then there would always be the one country that would invest into more damaging technology to gain the upper hand over everyone else, to unbalance the scale.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Aside from a biological threat, what could be mroe devastating than a nuke? I suppose wheather control, but thats just a bit off past the horizon for right now as far as I know. Im talking full scale precision lightning storms and manufactured hurricanes of course.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   
To be honest, I wouldn't even want to think of what kind of destruction mankind would make trying to outpower a nuke.

This subject does remind me of the novel known as "Cat's Cradle." In it, there is a substance known as 'Ice-nine' that is capable of ending all life on Earth. Any water that came into contact with Ice-nine would freeze, setting off a chain reaction with other bodies of water near it. If Ice-nine were seeded into the ocean, it would freeze all of the Earth's major bodies of water, killing every living species.

Though, this substance is Science Fiction, there have been some groups out there trying to create the real thing.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   
UGh...just what we need...everyone and their brother having a nuclear weapon. We better do somethign quickly to NK to show that nuclear weapons proliferation will NOT be tolerated.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   
We (the U.S.) were the first to test the bomb. We were the first and only ones to use the bomb. We traded nuclear secrets to the British. Yet somehow we have the nerve to tell anyone who can and can't have the bomb.

Seems hypocritical to me.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Spot on Indy no one else has dropped one.If i wasnt part of the us allies list id want a bomb quick smart.I bet saddam wishes he had a few.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Nuclear weapon technology proliferating comes from Google (search 'build a nuke") but the root of the problem is from Al Gore initiative in creating the Internet. I think now days you can download the blue prints from file sharing programs.

I did notice a Kim Jong-il on emule.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
We (the U.S.) were the first to test the bomb. We were the first and only ones to use the bomb. We traded nuclear secrets to the British. Yet somehow we have the nerve to tell anyone who can and can't have the bomb.

Seems hypocritical to me.


would you rather the planet be on the edge of nuclear annihilation constantly?



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   
No. And I think that is why it is important that the U.S. dismantle its extensive WMD program. Remember WMDs are evil and so are nukes. As long as we have them everyone else is going to want them. If you don't think it makes a difference to have them just look how fast we haven't invaded NK.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
We (the U.S.) were the first to test the bomb. We were the first and only ones to use the bomb. We traded nuclear secrets to the British. Yet somehow we have the nerve to tell anyone who can and can't have the bomb.

Seems hypocritical to me.


you are so right.


how can US assume that its enemies would stop going ahead with their plans, just because the US say so? how about some logic here.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
It would be interesting to see what would happen if Canada were to create nuclear weapons. I wonder if the US government's reaction would be the same as their policy on Iran or if they would support Canada's actions.


Bad example as Canada has already provided tons of technical, knowledge and material support to the USA's and British Nuclear weapons program.

www.answers.com...

Mexico or Brazil would be a better example as I don't think the US in it's current state would object to the prospect of a overt weapons program on our part. We aren't Iran or N. Korea after all.

I would raise blood hell over it though if Harper ever decided to go that rout. Canadians in general would do the same.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join