Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Make a move for world Peace

It is. I'll vote no, now.

bc, who's heard most of them, but not all at once, and is very surprised so many voted no to that misstated question.



Hugh Haskell wrote:

At 14:20 -0700 8/11/07, Bernard Cleyet wrote:

I'm very disappointed -- Perhaps I'm not very radical, but I think a
very small number of reliably deliverable nukes are necessary for
DETERRENCE. (I'm thinking in the tens number and that's the total
including MIRV'd ones.)

The pole cheats, as it's framed the question. Not, do we need thousand
of new ones, but do we need any. Do, someone, convince me we don't need
ANY.

bc, suspects the initial large no vote caused them to change the question.

Hugh, is this the question when you voted?: Are nuclear weapons still
vital for our defense (sic.)? NOT regarding reliable replacement.


To be honest, I'm not sure. I didn't read the question all that carefully--only enough to make sure which way I needed to vote, since I would have voted against new warheads, new weapons, or keeping our old weapons.

Here's my argument in a nutshell, why we don't need any nuclear weapons. The stated purpose of our nuclear arsenal is as a deterrent to other to use them against us. If we look around the world at those who have nuclear weapons (or want them real bad), only Iran and North Korea fall in the category of potential nuclear threats, and neither is in a position to threaten us directly (I'll leave aside the issues of them threatening our allies--that is more complex, but I don't think it makes it necessary for us to have any nukes). Yet we have over 10,000 nuclear weapons in our arsenal, and about 2,000 of them on direct alert and targeted at Russia.

Why? I have no idea. Russia constitutes no nuclear threat to us, except that their nuclear weapons that are targeted at us and also on alert are controlled by an antiquated and crumbling system of warning and launch control. The most likely reason for a nuclear exchange between us and Russia now would be a false alarm or an accidental launch. So it seems to me that those alert weapons, since they increase the likelihood of an unintentional launch of a nuclear missile or missiles don't make us more safe, but less safe.

China is in the process of taking over the world by economics. They don't need to do it by force, and what they get will be in much better shape than if they took it by force. Besides they don't have the capability of any serious damage to this country (maybe in the northwest, which would be a great tragedy but hardly fatal). So I don't see China as a credible nuclear threat.

That leaves terrorists. Now, if a terrorist got hold of a nuclear weapon, and was able to detonate it in the US, they could do a whole lot of damage. But would our nuclear deterrent be of any value in keeping that from happening? I don't think so. Who would we retaliate against if they did set one off? They are not associated with any one country or group of countries, and unless we had some very convincing evidence that it was done with the direct collusion of a particular country, our using a weapon against some country that we suspected helped the terrorists would bring down on us universal condemnation, and quickly turn us into an outlaw state.

So there, in short, is why I don't think our nuclear arsenal buys us anything, and in fact makes us less safe than we would be without it. And that doesn't take into account the fact that our having nuclear weapons is one of the reasons other countries have them (or want them).

And getting rid of them would save us billions every year (after the expense of dismantling our arsenal and getting rid of the nuclear wastes).

Is that enough?

Hugh