so i was watching crossfire today...(nuclear proliferation)

[Se7en]

...and the conservative pundit (the one with the suspenders) was outraged that john kerry would suggest that the U.S. discontinue its nuclear bunker busting research in favor of providing clear leadership in its anti-proliferation stance. the pundit could not fathom the logic of: "if we want dprk, iran, etc. to halt nuclear development, we should halt ours as well." he said it was ridiculous to even consider this measure, that other nations should not determine what weapons the U.S. develops to protect itself.

so i ask, what right does the united states have to dictate to other countries what weapons they can/cannot develop for their own defense? especially if the united states is not willing to comply to its own demands, thus placing the military capability of the itself in a league far greater than any potential rival. to me the answer is crystal clear: the dream of absolute global hegemony. this guy wasn't even trying to cover it up. i was personally disgusted.

any other opinions?

 

[A_Wanderer]

The use of nuclear bunker busters is questionable - now this all ties in with the old strategic warheads during the cold war and adapting the nuclear stockpile to modern warfare. There is no point in having weapons that can destroy cities when all you need to do is eliminate an underground weapons facility. I would say that any development of low yield nuclear bunker busters must be coupled with a greater effort at mutual disarment with Russia. We must also get India/Pakistan to remove their weapons - although they see them as a source of national pride and any effort will have to be matched by a full and proper resolution of Jammu - Kashmir. So pursue weapons better suited to your needs and get rid of the doomsday devices.

Now on the somewhat seperate issue of nuclear prolifieration. I do not think that allowing nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of tinpot dictatorships is desirable. In the middle east the worst possible outcome is for Iran to develop and retain a nuclear arsenel. The mullahs have made their intention of developing such weapons clear, the danger is that once said weapons are developed at some point in future a first strike against Israel may be attempted - this would not be good for anybody. Israel on the other hand is much more careful with what it may or may not posess. If it were to have such a capability then it would not have any need to use the weapons in the name of national pride - they would be purely defensive (important considering the numerous wars of agression waged against Israel since its formation).

Ideal world situation - everybody lives in peace and nuclear weapons are no longer needed.

Crappy reality - people want to kill other people, nuclear weapons do this very well and countries will inevitably try to get nuclear weapons. For every new nuclear power it raises the risk of an all out war by another degree (for example. If North Korea were to test a bomb tomorrow within six weeks Japan and South Korea could themselves would have weapons - this would be 4 nuclear powers in the North Asian theatre, add India/Pakistan to the mix and the risk of somebody making a mistake is very large - billions of lives would hang in the balance).

 

[indra]

...and the conservative pundit (the one with the suspenders) was outraged that john kerry would suggest that the U.S. discontinue its nuclear bunker busting research in favor of providing clear leadership in its anti-proliferation stance. the pundit could not fathom the logic of: "if we want dprk, iran, etc. to halt nuclear development, we should halt ours as well." he said it was ridiculous to even consider this measure, that other nations should not determine what weapons the U.S. develops to protect itself.

so i ask, what right does the united states have to dictate to other countries what weapons they can/cannot develop for their own defense? especially if the united states is not willing to comply to its own demands, thus placing the military capability of the itself in a league far greater than any potential rival. to me the answer is crystal clear: the dream of absolute global hegemony. this guy wasn't even trying to cover it up. i was personally disgusted.

any other opinions?

And so many in the US wonder why we are considered hypocritical bullies in so many parts of the world....

*edited because I just noticed I had screwed up the quote

 

[A_Wanderer]

DPRK and Iran do not care about US nuclear weapons because they know that the US will not use them unless seriously provoked, they desire weapons because it guarantees protection. If Iraq failed outright and the US retreated leaving a fractured country in civil war Iran could make a move against it in the name of stability in the region, if it had nuclear weapons coupled with their shiny new misslies then the US would not be so inclined to prevent them from doing it.

 

[BVS]

DPRK and Iran do not care about US nuclear weapons because they know that the US will not use them unless seriously provoked, they desire weapons because it guarantees protection.

I think all humanity needs to rid itself of this completely asinine belief. The idea of more destruction power equals peace is ridiculous. The cold war cashed in on this idea and now we're all paying for it.

I'm not sure if humanity will ever know how to dismantle the atomic bomb.

 

[U2democrat]

crossfire. best show ever. paul begala and tucker carlson are my buddies, but robert novak, the conservative pundit you are talking about is so disgustingly MEAN. paul and tucker are great to their fans (such as myself, they're always so wonderful to me) but bob (or blob as i call him) doesn't want to get within 10 feet of audience members.

as for the meat of this issue, kerry is right. nuclear bunker busters are unneccessary. not to mention very unsafe, as far as bombs go anyway. the bunker busters we have do a fine job of demolishing buildings and killing people. war.

 

[Se7en]

may main concern with this topic is the development of nuclear missiles for tactical offensive purposes. most of the world's nukes right now have been developed as deterents...but i fear that the continues development of offensive nuclear weapons by the US will set a dangerous precedent for other nuclear powers.

i fear that complete nuclear, biological, and chemical disarmament is the only chance we have as a race to survive the next century.

what have we done?

 

[LoveTown]

correct me if I am wrong but I do believe that the US is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon against an enemy. If I am right, nuff said...if I am wrong...I stand corrected.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You are right, but the weapons did their job. They blew Japan into submission and showed the Soviets not to make a move into Japan or Western Europe without there being serious concequences. It isn't pretty, it is war.

 

[LoveTown]

did their job?

that's a sad thought that people being vaporized can be considered part of the job.