politicartoons | I know I'm not alone in feeling this.

whilst there is a huge gulf betwen hasnt used resently, and never use, i think that its one that can be over looked. after all, the main impresion off nukes are the cold war and MAD, a doctrin witch almost literly says "thayll never get used, cos that would be just dumb...right?". infact, its quite posble that his refering to this aspect of the nuke, that it is now a wepoen that can never be used

and im afrid i would like to know when, in warfair, rather then testing and postureing, uraniem bombs and other nuklear ordanse have been used (deplted uraianm dosent count becous its used for its high desestey, and dosent cause a nuklear reaction)

So long as both sides have nuclear weapons, nukes will likly not be used in an offensive capability. The only non-escalating use of nuclear weapons when both nations posses deterrant capabiltiy is a defensive strike against an invading force on friendly soil.

true, but this not useing nukes. at least, not in the traditonal sence. more to the point, whilst the theorys nice, all it needs is for one side to get to nervose and bang. under this defention, nukes will never be used. at least in the iradtion sence.

and certenly, under this, i dont think a reduction in arms would be a bad thing. the us still has far more nukes then it needs.

You do not get nervous when nuclear anhilation is on the table. It is an infinite risk situation when launching on an opponent who posses deterrant forces.

When listing the situations where the chance of nuclear strike is least likly to occur you have

1: No one has nukes
2: Everyone has nukes
3: Some people have nukes and not others
4: One person has nukes.

Since once you have nukes, you wont ever give them up, this leaves us with the most stable enviornment of "everyone has nukes".

Such that when both sides have deterrent forces the chances of nuclear strike are low. And when any one individual posses nukes the size of the aresenal is irrelevent so long as it contains engough force for a deterrent.

In short. Nuclear war is not something to worry about so long as you have nukes. Now if you are in Iran it would be time to get antsy, because when you dont have nukes, that is the only time it is likly that someone would be able to nuke you.

the us is the least likely to nuke anyone. nukes are a dirty word, and anyone who even looks like useing them gets funny look. and it still only takes one wrong move and everyone gose splat.

you right, no country will give up nukes. and the number of wepoens dose matter, if only becous if your spending money mainting nukes your never going to lanch, then that money could be spent on beter things. plus, the smaller the arsnel, the smaller the risk of something going wrong and the world turning in to a cinder.

and, on the point of useing nukes on an invading force not being an esclation, dureing the cold war, nato had a policy that if the russans made a move in to western germany, thay would use nukes. the russans would retaleate with a full strike, folowed by the nato countrys in a full strike. so, at dureing the cold war, it would have been an esclation.

No, the non-escalating use of nukes is against an invading force on friendly/neutral soil. The nato full scale response was not an escalating responce it was a policy decision intended to tell Russia that they would not take increment their use of force and would go straight to the deterrent effect.

I.E. They made it official policy in order to deter the USSR from attacking. The strikes described were not defensive nuklear blasts, they were full scale retaliation.

Also, the number of weapons does matter. And smaller is worse, the less nukes one has the more likly strikes are because the less likly deterrent response is.

the number dose matter, in a lot of ways. one, nukes are expencive, and the more there are, the more chance here is that there could be a fuck up.

and, there is also the nuklear non prolfration treaty, witch said that those signtors who had nukes would eventuly get rid of them.

lets not forgot the us has all its icbms, plus the sub lanched missless. and sub lanched missless are far more diffcult to take out. its why there used. so its not like a redunction in the number of warheads is gona screw the US over, and ideed, it may lead the way to starting a decomsoning proses to help meet the non prolfration treaty.

I dont think you understand deterrent theory, you should read up.

im willing to give that. everything ive lernd has been from a few wiki articals a while ago and a radio program.

however, i will say this. britan, france, russia, the usa, and china, all signed an agreement with the other countrys of the world to give up nuklear wepoens. it is the treaty with the most signtors, i belver. these 5 countrys (along with india, pakastan, and north korea), should give up there wepoens in line with the treaty. then, we would be at senario 2 that you gave, no one has nukes. and to me, that present infitnaly less chance of us all being vaporised.

i find (as, prahaps, i hope everyone else), all war apporhant, but axsept there are times when it may be nessesery, for a viraty of resons, but nukes, and cemical wepoens, and doubly so for biological wepoens, repsent a class of wepeons so destrctive that, to me, thay have no place on the battle field, or even on the negotating table, for use as a barganing chip

but, i will axspt that nations will be reluctient to give up nukes whilst other nations have them. however, nukes are very exspenive to maintane, and, indeed, replace. money witch could be much beter spent on a long list off things both social and milatery.

and, presuming im on the right thread, these, as well as not brakeing anther treaty (the test ban treaty), are, for me, exelent resons. but, also, to a large extent, moral. and, at the end of the day, if your off a diffrant moral mind set, we'll just end up agueing in circles.

No such treaty exists.

I cant understand what you are trying to say with the rest of it,

witch treaty?

the test ban treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Test_Ban_Treaty) or the non prolifration treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty). becouse thay both exist.

and, becous, you asked so nicely

"m willing to give that. Everything I’ve learned has been from a few wiki articles a while ago and a radio program.

however, I will say this. Brittan, France, Russia, the USA, and china, all signed an agreement with the other countries of the world to give up nuclear weapons. it is the treaty with the most signatures, i believe. these 5 countries (along with India, Pakistan, and north Korea), should give up there weapons in line with the treaty. then, we would be at senario 2 that you gave, no one has nukes. And to me, that present infinitely less chance of us all being vaporized.

i find (as, perhaps, I hope everyone else), all war abhornt but except there are times when it may be necessary, for a verity of reasons, but nukes, and chemical weapons, and doubly so for biological weapons, represent a class of weapons so destructive that, to me, they have no place on the battle field, or even on the negotiating table, for use as a bargaining chip

but, i will accept that nations will be reluctant to give up nukes whilst other nations have them. however, nukes are very expensive to maintain, and, indeed, replace. money witch could be much beter spent on a long list off things both social and military.

and, presuming im on the right thread, these, as well as not braking anther treaty (the test ban treaty), are, for me, excellent reasons. But, also, to a large extent, moral. and, at the end of the day, if your off a different moral mind set, we'll just end up arguing in circles. "

I know I'm not alone in feeling this.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject