Nuclear weapons are the biggest waste of resources in history!

[amerikat]

Trillions to make them and they can never be used.

I really don't understand the fuss about North Korea and Iran.

Nukes are weapons that can't ever be used.

The use of one would result in the destruction of the entire world.

Let's build a sustainable economy without the legacy weapons.

just sayin.

[dysfunctional press]

1. but they HAVE been used.

just sayin.

[amerikat]

3. just twice

in a time of desperation and I don't think they will ever be used again.

[dysfunctional press]

6. in a time of 'desperation' is definitely debatable.

but odds are that they will eventually be used again.

[amerikat]

12. I can't imagine a scenario that nukes will ever be used again

Really, I think they are a product that has no value.

[dysfunctional press]

14. after ww1, nobody could imagine a scenario for another world war.

:shrug:
times change.

[amerikat]

16. nukes are different

they won't be used.

[StreetKnowledge]

22. I wouldn't be too sure about that.

You see, the reason we have nuclear weapons is because some other people also have them. People who hate us. Iran, for example. I would say that ICBMs should be abolished, but nukes are needed to maintain the country's survival. You can't uninvent something.

[dysfunctional press]

27. you're entitled to your opinion on the matter...

because that's all it is- an opinion.

the facts are that they've already been used twice in war unnecessarily. and it will very likely happen again.

[bananas]

23. There have been many situations where they could have been used.

In the first gulf war, nukes were prepared for retaliation if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons.
Bush and Cheney wanted to use nuclear bunker-busters on underground Iranian facilities,
if things went a little differently they would have gotten their way.
See www.nuclearrisk.org for more analysis.

[ThomWV]

26. Not twice - thousands of times is the right answer. Every "test" was a political statement

There is a big part of it that you don't get at all.

The first bomb dropped on Japan probably saved a million or more Japanese from being killed by the invasion that would have taken place without it and who on earth could possibly estimate how many allied troops would have died? So there is some value in the first and second one too.

After that, along with the test weapons that had been dropped, it might surprise you to learn that there was not enough enriched uranium on earth to make another bomb. In fact by the early 1950's we still had not got back into the bomb building business.

As for the cost, maybe this 'statistic' will be of some value to you. You may no know this but the building of the first bombs used up about 10% of the total electricity production of this nation during the time they were being built. And this is interesting, but it its own way not too surprising; the energy yield (explosive force) of the bombs dropped roughly equaled the energy used in their production. It isn't cheap to run tens of thousands compressors for months on end, even in Tennessee.

[The Straight Story]

2. We might need them if aliens ever attack us

:)

[amerikat]

5. The aliens are not irrelevant

but they can't use the nuke either

[C......N......C]

4. If they weren't going to use them, then they would have just lied about their existence.

[dysfunctional press]

8. maybe they did...

maybe thos silos and subs are full of blanks...:shrug:

[amerikat]

9. The nukes were real at the time

Just saying that they are useless in this day and age.

[rrneck]

7. Nukes are useful even if they are never used. nt

[The Straight Story]

10. Out of Curiosity have you ever read the Jesus Factor?

been awhile for me but IIRC nukes worked in testing but not when used against people, the ones we used in Japan failed but we made it look like they didn't. It covered a lot of ground concerning the cold war and such. We were never sure if the russian nukes worked, and they were not sure ours did - it was all a game.

At any rate, an interesting read.

[amerikat]

11. No haven't read it

send me a link and I will read it.

[The Straight Story]

13. check out the reviews of it here:

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Factor-Edwin-Corley/dp/0812881044

You can get it here for $1.99:
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwork/3427857/used/The%20Jesus%20factor

it is a good read, and if you don't agree will cover the 1.99 for you :)

[amerikat]

15. I did enjoy Religioulus

way to much

[The Straight Story]

18. One other book I loved (and yeah it was by a fundie)

Was "The Illuminati" by Larry Burkett (he died awhile back, think I posted a thread on it). Even if one does not agree with his views it was an interesting read on how people can be manipulated by the press, mass hysteria, etc. I don't like his writing style all that much, but it was pretty fluid and kept moving. He, along with people like Frank Perreti (sp?), tend to not like us folks on the left so it is not an easy read from that POV - but their works cover some interesting ground.

[amerikat]

17. I speed read and want my $1.99 back, just kidding

I'll check it out.

[The Straight Story]

19. LOL

And me being the idiot I am forgot to mention checking it out from the Library :)

I need go there soon myself.

[amerikat]

20. I'm going to bed........but I think more discussion

is needed

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Nukes are about leverage

There are generally three reasons that states would acquire nukes or any weapons of mass destruction for that matter: offensive, deterrence, and exploitation.

If North Korea or Iran gets nukes and long-range ICBMs it means that they have the potential for second-strike capability. This means that if we were to invade either country they would have the capability to launch a nuclear weapon at one of our allies in response. Certainly this would make us think twice about invading either country. That is the deterrence reason. The nuke isn't valuable in itself because it will never be used but it is basically money spent on deterrence.

Exploitation is when North Korea or Iran starts enriching uranium but we bargain with them to stop by offering financial aid and lifting sanctions. They spend money on a nuclear program and we pay them back more they spent on enriching uranium more from the lifted sanctions and financial aid.

Offensive is if Iran really does plan to give its nukes to Hezbollah or if North Korea really plans to use its nukes to attack Japan or South Korea. The probability of a genuinely offensive intentioned state is very low because of mutually assured destruction.

Chemical and biological weapons are also rarely used offensively as well. Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in the 90's was about deterrence and self-preservation rather than an offensive move. The same goes for his somewhat non-compliance with inspections. It's not that he really had any intention of arming terrorists as we were led to believe by Bush and Cheney. It's that if the word every got out to the Iranians and the Kurds that he wasn't sitting on stockpiles of weapons, it would be a serious threat to his power.

Saddam was ruthless and ambitious and that is why we put him in power in the first place. But he wasn't stupid and he saw how we were able to completely demolish his army in a matter of days during the first Gulf War. That was deterrence enough to keep him from trying to do anything.

[cali]

24. sophmoric. to put it kindly

nukes have been used, and there are undoubtedly people who would use them again.

[bananas]

25. Undoubtedly. Bush and Cheney wanted to.

With all our checks-and-balances, we almost nuked Iran, a country which is of little threat to us.
If many countries had nuclear weapons, there's no doubt one of them would use their nukes.