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.
You forgot 1956 when Egypt tried to nationalize the Suez canal.
Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Originally posted by DarknStormy
Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Are you familiar with the recent history of Israel?
I am familiar with all of Israel's history....
DarknStormy, with due respect, who were the aggressors in the The Arab-Israeli War of 1948, the Six Day War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973?
Would it be fair to say Israel was fighting a war of national survival?
Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
Then why doesn't the US just lead by example removing ALL of their nuclear arms from the stockpile?
This paper discusses the official nuclear policy of the Russian Federation and the evolution of Russian thinking on the role of nuclear weapons in the 21st century.
It seeks to explain the importance of nuclear weapons for post-Soviet Russia; the post-Cold War deterrence strategy; the development of the nuclear forces structure and their missions; as well as Russia’s approaches to nuclear arms control and nuclear proliferation.
Finally, the paper examines the place and role of Russia in the multipolar nuclear constellation of this new century
For the post-Soviet Russian elite, nuclear weapons play a major politico-psychological role as one of only two remaining attributes of their country’s great power and global status (the other being a permanent seat on the UN
Security Council).
Over the past 15 years, Russian leaders have been repeatedly “reminding” others, in particular the United States, that Russia is still a nuclear power on par with the U.S. In reality, by doing so they have been reassuring themselves that not everything is lost and that Russia will make a comeback as a major world player.
Nuclear weapons are a symbol of Russia’s strategic independence from the United States and NATO, and their still formidable capabilities alone assure for Russia a special relationship with America.
In military terms, with the serious decline of Russia's conventional forces, capabilities and readiness, nuclear weapons alone provide deterrence.
Even in the absence of credible external threats of appropriate caliber, this
works to reassure the high command and the political leadership that the country is adequately protected against any hypothetical large-scale attack.
In October of 2003, President Putin called nuclear deterrence forces “the main foundation of Russia’s national security”, both for the present and the future. This form of reassurance, undoubtedly, is a positive contributing factor in the overall Russian decision-making process.
Total appropriations for nuclear weapons and weapons-related programs in fiscal year (FY) 2008 were at least $52.4 billion, according to the best available data (see Figure 1).
This does not include costs for air defense, antisubmarine warfare,classified programs, and most nuclear weapons–related intelligence programs. The total costs borne by the Department of Defense (DOD) to deploy and maintain nuclear forces are partially estimated and therefore may be too low.
Even so, this amount is far larger than most officials would acknowledge. When these officials consider nuclear weapons costs, they generally do so only from the perspective of their respective department, agency, or jurisdiction.
By way of comparison, the 2008 nuclear weapons and weapons-related “budget” exceeds all anticipated government expenditures on international diplomacy and foreign assistance ($39.5 billion) and natural resources and the environment ($33 billion).
It is nearly double the budget for general science, space, and technology
($27.4 billion), and it is almost fourteen times what the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has allocated for all energy-related research and development.
Moreover, the allocation of funds among the five categories reveals troubling realities about current government priorities in the nuclear arena.
Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
What makes the US (Mind you that I'm from and still live here) so special to be able to own them when where the ONE country that's used it?? You can't ignore history and you can't just chalk it up to the times...
"Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs.
These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.
America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war.
We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately."
Originally posted by jhn7537
When the US used the nuclear weapons on civilian populations it wasn't some unknown, the US new exactly what they were doing and it was a reckless tactic to say the least.
Originally posted by jhn7537
Now with Iran you seem to be basing all this information off the Govts. who DO lie constantly to it's citizens. Obviously Israel, USA and Great Britian and many other nations will argue against them making any progress technologically or militarily speaking.
Originally posted by jhn7537
I will never get how people can defend that it's okay for us, but not them... If anything, we (USA) are more reckless and aggressive when it comes to our military, more so then any other country and we constantly try to dictate how everyone should act.
Although light water reactors are not designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium, the design can produce large amounts of weapons-grade plutonium in a short period of time.
Originally posted by FlyingFox
I really wish the time to put nukes away was now.
The big parties should convene, disarm their own nukes while they go together and neutralize the rouge facilities.
The devices themselves are vile, and should be obsoleted on common sense moral grounds.
There can never be world peace with the bomb technology expanding to countries that still want a fight.
The whole thing really reflects VERY poorly on us as a species.
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by FlyingFox
I call nonsense.
From the article:
Although light water reactors are not designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium, the design can produce large amounts of weapons-grade plutonium in a short period of time.
ehh whhaa?edit on 1-12-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by FlyingFox
I call nonsense.
From the article:
Although light water reactors are not designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium, the design can produce large amounts of weapons-grade plutonium in a short period of time.
ehh whhaa?
In a light water reactor, which is operated with low enriched uranium (four percent), the fuel remains in the reactor up to 60 months when the reactor is run at maximum power generation,. But it takes only a few months to produce plutonium 239, that is, weapons-grade plutonium. … In the 1970s a British company had shut down a light water reactor prematurely. The result was around 450 kilograms of plutonium, or material for about 70 bombs.
To achieve the high percentages of Pu-239 required for weapon grade plutonium, it must be produced specifically for this purpose. The uranium must spend only several weeks in the reactor core and then be removed. For this to be carried out in a LWR - the prevalent reactor design for electricity generation - the reactor would have to be shut down completely for such an operation; this is easily detectable.
Originally posted by ecapsretuo
Rhule's stances are grossly pro Israeli and hawkish and is cited frequently by pro Israel blogs and papers.
It is BS to make it sound like "Germany says so." .
Originally posted by ArbiterOfTheiPhones
reply to post by FlyingFox
They only have A bomb. Singular. Russia and the US could threaten Iran, and scare the # out of them. But still, a nuclear bomb is a nuclear bomb, and it can be launched to anywhere in the world.
I'm not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons, Colonel. I'm terrified of the man who only wants one.