bascule Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 http://www.physlink.com/News/102605NuclearPetition.cfm The DOD is requesting nuclear first-strike capibility against non-nuclear targets. Over 470 physicists have signed off in opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 *cringe* Even though they asked for it, I hope they don't actually intend to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saryctos Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 It's a deterrent, knowing that the US is legally allowed to use nuclear force pre-emptively would prevent other countries from pushing their buttons by a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 This is only so they can use some of the new bunker busters in countries that don't have nuclear arms.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Bound to create resentment in the international community. It's only a matter of time before Iran starts developing nuclear weapons "for it's own protection." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 The only thing I find more unsettling than the prospect of nuclear war is the prospect of a bunch of ideologues dictating what's best for society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Must...not...quote...Austin Powers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 How ridiculously asinine. Or it would be ridiculous, if the inevitible result wasn't too horrible to be funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinker Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Hmmmm... This is a joke, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Well, at least they`re Asking for permission this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinker Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 So if America is legally able to use nuclear weapons, does that mean North Korea is as well? What about Iran? Come to think of it, what about Israel? Would Israel argue that the current situation in the middle east justifies the use of nuclear bombs? If not, how much more "reason" is necessary? Make no mistake, this is the path to the destruction of our species. The fact is it only has to happen once. Just one country to launch a strike and its all over. This is a big step in that direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Woa, the thread was saying that hundreds of scientists have signed against this act, why is everyone acting as though it is definately going to be passed? Or is that what it is like, will they pay no attention to the signatures? (I don't know, I'm asking) Also even if it does pass I don't think it's such a bad thing, as long as they are not used. If, for example, countries like those in the Mid East and N Korea etc. know that America could use nukes against them then maybe it would be a good deterrent. On the other hand if America did use nukes the results could be quite bad. Having said that if America dropped a nuke on say, Iran, then assuming Iran does not have its own nukes it would not become a nuclear war as the Iranians could not respond with their own nukes. And face it, if you don't have nukes you can't go to war with someone who has nukes and has already used them against you! This is just the other side of the argument! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GutZ Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 What's the point if they won't use nukes? If it gets to the point that they would have to use one, it makes it trivial if they were allowed to or not. UN: You just wiped out half of the middle east!!! US: But we are allowed too. UN: Oh!...in that case...*high five* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Why is everyone acting like this is only about city killing nukes like those used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? This is likely more about tactical nukes, which are still bad but not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrusman Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I can't imagine what relevance it really has. If we're in a position that we think we need to use nukes, I doubt it's going to matter much if we have a policy in place anyway... This is just forward thinking. Like if several Arab countries were to surprise attack Israel for instance, without enough time for the US to mass troops and come to their aid while they're being slaughtered out of existence - then we might use nukes on those countries. Or something like that. You'd be amazed how many "policies" are in place that are just as ominous sounding as that one. You have to remember, we are a democratic country governed by the people, a country of laws. Not a dictatorship or monarchy. So we have to have things arranged a particular way in order to operate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I don't know what people are freaking out about. This is a story about a bunch of isolated, politically ignorant technogeeks with delusions of grandeur and partisan ideology setting their understanding of science aside to make a political statement in the midst of a vacuum of dreamy miscomprehension. This nonsense occupies the same mental territory as Al Gore's "A Convenient Exaggeration". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I don't know what people are freaking out about. This is a story about a bunch of isolated' date=' politically ignorant technogeeks with delusions of grandeur and partisan ideology setting their understanding of science aside to make a political statement in the midst of a vacuum of dreamy miscomprehension. This nonsense occupies the same mental territory as Al Gore's "A Convenient Exaggeration".[/quote'] Note how the only source of the "new" policy is from one of the authors of the Petition. FWIW, the US had tactical nuclear weapons in Europe for much of the cold war. These were intended to bust up a blitzkrieg attack and would not necessarily be launched against nuclear targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Woa, the thread was saying that hundreds of scientists have signed against this act, why is everyone acting as though it is definately going to be passed? Or is that what it is like, will they pay no attention to the signatures? [i'](I don't know, I'm asking)[/i] Yes, it could easily get passed. Ignoring hundreds of scientists has become something of a national passtime in the past few years. Also even if it does pass I don't think it's such a bad thing, as long as they are not used. If, for example, countries like those in the Mid East and N Korea etc. know that America could use nukes against them then maybe it would be a good deterrent. They already know that we could, just only in self defense against another nuclear attack. That's called mutually assured destruction, and it pretty effectively prevents there ever being a nuclear war, unless some idiot changes the policy. On the other hand if America did use nukes the results could be quite bad. Having said that if America dropped a nuke on say, Iran, then assuming Iran does not have its own nukes it would not become a nuclear war as the Iranians could not respond with their own nukes. And face it, if you don't have nukes you can't go to war with someone who has nukes and has already used them against you! It's the precedent that is the concern. We're not the only nation with nukes, and club is growing whether we like it or not. We do this, and any nation with a pesky neighbor has a defendable right to nuke them, and then nukes will be just another part of war (assuming we aren't all killed before it becomes common custom). North and South Korea, China and Taiwan, India and Pakistan, Israel and the entire Middle East.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Yes, it could easily get passed... Is this a new law being considered? Does anyone have a direct link to the "new" DOD policy? As I mentioned, I think that non-nuclear targets such as thousands of Soviet tanks crossing into West Germany were fair game. The only cite we have in this discussion, thus far, is from the guy who is collecting signatures for a petition. I'd never sign any petition based upon only information given to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrusman Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 It's the precedent that is the concern. We're not the only nation with nukes, and club is growing whether we like it or not. We do this, and any nation with a pesky neighbor has a defendable right to nuke them, and then nukes will be just another part of war (assuming we aren't all killed before it becomes common custom). North and South Korea, China and Taiwan, India and Pakistan, Israel and the entire Middle East.... Sorry, but that's just poetry. I mean really. Nukes will never be just another part of war, that's silly. There aren't enough people and the globe isn't big enough for it be just another part of war. I've been listening to this fantasy for years and it's ridiculous to think that humans will wipe themselves out in a fit of global destruction. It just sounds cool when you say it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dak Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Sorry, but that's just poetry. I mean really. Nukes will never be just another part of war, that's silly. There aren't enough people and the globe isn't big enough for it be just another part of war. I've been listening to this fantasy for years and it's ridiculous to think that humans will wipe themselves out in a fit of global destruction. It just sounds cool when you say it... I dunno... i think it's feasable. You may aswell say that humans wouldnt kill hundereds of thousands of people in what is, essentially, an argument. Or that, for years, europeans would adopt the philosphy that toal war was the only logical way. anyway, as jim said, 'nukes' doesn't neccesarily mean city-leveling WMDs, they can be 'tackticle' nukes, eg tank-busters, bunker-busters, etc, and could easily -- if alllowed -- become commonplace. Question (IMO) is, does it increase the risk of a war involving city-leveling nukes, and does it cause unnaceptable environmental damage, which would make their mass-use unethical/unnaceptable (pretty much the same argument as is leveled against the use of (non-nuke) uranium-tipped anti-tank shells). if i'm interpreting the situation correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Note how the only source of the "new" policy is from one of the authors of the Petition. FWIW, the US had tactical nuclear weapons in Europe for much of the cold war. These were intended to bust up a blitzkrieg attack and would not necessarily be launched against nuclear targets. I thought about commenting on that, but I dimly recall the stories floating around a few months ago. What I remember is that they were about back-shelf contingency planning more than anything else. Yawn. I totally understand people being concerned about warfare and nuclear weapons, but this just reeks of scare mongering. Walrusman has it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrusman Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 anyway, as jim said, 'nukes' doesn't neccesarily mean city-leveling WMDs, they can be 'tackticle' nukes, eg tank-busters, bunker-busters, etc, and could easily -- if alllowed -- become commonplace. Ok, I have to admit ignorance here. I thought nukes meant big explosion followed by large uninhabitable regions of the world for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Ok, I have to admit ignorance here. I thought nukes meant big explosion followed by large uninhabitable regions of the world for a long time. They come in all sizes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Apparently they gave up: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9820682/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now