Nuclear weapons

Generally an unmoderated forum for discussion of pretty much any topic. The focus however, is usually politics.
User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 18491
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by Vrede too » Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:12 am

O Really wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:53 am
Vrede too wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:25 am
It's a broad based mechanism to increase pressure on the wannabe genocidal maniacs. Is it your defeatist position that we will never, ever get rid of nuclear weapons and thus no one should try?
Nobody is going to voluntarily and arbitrarily give up their weapons as long as they fear what they think is a legitimate threat. That's true whether the weapon is a gun or a nuke. As difficult and impossible-seeming as it is, we'd be better off focusing on reducing and addressing the causes of threats than to quibble over how many if any nukes a country has. I have no defense (or sympathy) for Kim Jong-un, but understanding his motivation is easy: he thinks the world (and the US in particular) is out to get him. They are. He's a living example of the old comment, "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't really out to get you...and if they really are out to get you, paranoid is a survival skill."
We'd be better off focusing on reducing and addressing the causes of *gun violence (paranoia, stupidity, greed, jealousy, cowardice, drug prohibition, gangs, etc.)* than to quibble over how many if any *guns* a country has *and how they are regulated*?

Hey, I'm all for going after the causes of human failings, but I think reducing the consequences of them is less daunting.
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 18491
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by Vrede too » Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:23 am

Okay, absolute and eternal defeatism it is. I have no counter-argument to that.
rstrong wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:49 am
Ukraine got independence in 1991. It was even recognized as an independent state by Russia in 1991. Ukraine agreed to give up its nukes in 1994.
My bad, thanks, but that's not the entire story.
Nuclear weapons and Ukraine

... While Ukraine had physical control of the weapons, it did not have operational control, as they were dependent on Russian-controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system....
So, whether Ukraine ever had nuclear weapons depends on the definition of 'had'. It sure looks to me like they never would have been a real deterrent to Russian aggression.
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 10790
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by O Really » Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:59 am

Vrede too wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:12 am

We'd be better off focusing on reducing and addressing the causes of *gun violence (paranoia, stupidity, greed, jealousy, cowardice, drug prohibition, gangs, etc.)* than to quibble over how many if any *guns* a country has *and how they are regulated*?
Well, that's true, actually. As the gun ummmm, "enthusiasts" like to point out, owning a gun in itself does not make one a danger to self or others, and Vermont, with very lax gun laws, and Switzerland, where most everybody owns a gun are very safe places. But then there's that pesky problem of having to balance theory with practicality. But my point remains the same: nobody who believes they "need" one is going to give up their Bushwhacker or their nuke until somebody takes it out of their dead (fried) hands.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 18491
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by Vrede too » Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:15 am

One can always site exceptions, but overall homes, states and comparable nations with fewer guns and/or stricter regulation have less gun violence.
Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias

... First of all, because they don’t have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased....

Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid....

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household....
CDC - Firearm Mortality by State: 2014

VT is okay nationally, tied with OH, SD and VA for 17th best with 10.3 deaths per 100,000 total population, but it's worse than all of greater New England including even NY and NJ. We probably don't often hear about VT gun violence because both the population and media market are so small.

If one were to imagine partial or total nuclear disarmament, wouldn't it always begin with external pressure like the treaty and internal pressure like the petition?


US nuclear inspection results now concealed

The Pentagon has a long and rich history of covering up its failings by citing "national security".
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 10790
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by O Really » Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:02 am

Well, as you know, I'm in favor or much better firearm laws than we currently have, and much tighter restrictions on purchase on use. I'm also in favor of reduction in the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons. I'm just saying it's a lot more complex than a lot of people seem to think, and if the underlying causes of the desire to be heavily armed aren't addressed, nothing much is going to get accomplished. I really don't see much effort (or for that matter even yammer) about that.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 18491
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by Vrede too » Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:12 am

Inertia, machismo, fear and profit are a large part of it. The United States maintains an arsenal of about 4,500 warheads when legit estimates are that a few hundred would be sufficient for any scenario.
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
rstrong
Captain
Posts: 5889
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Winnipeg, MB

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by rstrong » Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:36 pm

Vrede too wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:23 am
Okay, absolute and eternal defeatism it is. I have no counter-argument to that.
rstrong wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:49 am
Ukraine got independence in 1991. It was even recognized as an independent state by Russia in 1991. Ukraine agreed to give up its nukes in 1994.
My bad, thanks, but that's not the entire story.
Nuclear weapons and Ukraine

... While Ukraine had physical control of the weapons, it did not have operational control, as they were dependent on Russian-controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system....
So, whether Ukraine ever had nuclear weapons depends on the definition of 'had'. It sure looks to me like they never would have been a real deterrent to Russian aggression.
The Permissive Action Links will stop the average soldier if she sets out to pop a nuke. They won't stop a government, especially one that's already has a staff maintaining a nuclear weapons stockpile and has a large manufacturing base. Remove the links - the entire control and firing system - and you still have a nuke that just needs a new firing system. Ukraine had three years, and could have had a lot longer if they'd chosen.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 18491
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by Vrede too » Tue Jul 04, 2017 3:26 pm

Vrede too wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 12:47 am
So, you support North Korea? ...
Got it.
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
rstrong
Captain
Posts: 5889
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Winnipeg, MB

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by rstrong » Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:31 pm

Vrede too wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 3:26 pm
Vrede too wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 12:47 am
So, you support North Korea? ...
Got it.
Support them in what?

I certainly don't like them having nukes, but I have to concede that they have the same right to them as the US.

They can even rejoin the NPT as a nuclear power. Sure, they were in violation when they withdrew, but it's not like the US has complied.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 18491
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by Vrede too » Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:43 pm

You're repeatedly making the case that Ukraine should have kept its nukes, which you have to admit is an unusual stance.

Again, no need to convince me re the NPT. The whole point here is increasing the pressure, not throwing up ones hands and saying that nothing can be done, 4500 nukes are as eternal as God.
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
rstrong
Captain
Posts: 5889
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Winnipeg, MB

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by rstrong » Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:27 pm

Vrede too wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:43 pm
You're repeatedly making the case that Ukraine should have kept its nukes, which you have to admit is an unusual stance.
It would have been unusual had Ukraine not lost Crimea and most of Donbass.
Vrede too wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:43 pm
Again, no need to convince me re the NPT. The whole point here is increasing the pressure, not throwing up ones hands and saying that nothing can be done, 4500 nukes are as eternal as God.
Well sure. But marches on the inside and sanctions from the outside exert pressure. Another "Moon Treaty" does not.

Earlier you spoke of the new treaty's "penalties and its plan for future action." It has no penalties for those who don't sign on. No plan for future action beyond its own creation. Like the Moon Treaty, nothing that makes it more than a meaningless gesture. See my previous rant about slacktivism.

Pointing that out does NOT meant that ANY action is a meaningless gesture. (As just one example, countries can pass laws against buying from torture states and countries stocking WMDs. A North Korea is a United States is a Russia.)

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 18491
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by Vrede too » Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:51 pm

rstrong wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:27 pm
It would have been unusual had Ukraine not lost Crimea and most of Donbass.

We disagree. Ukraine still should have shed its possibly unusable nukes. They could easily be the bad guys 5 years from now and were under their former leadership.
Vrede too wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:43 pm
Again, no need to convince me re the NPT. The whole point here is increasing the pressure, not throwing up ones hands and saying that nothing can be done, 4500 nukes are as eternal as God.
Well sure. But marches on the inside and sanctions from the outside exert pressure. Another "Moon Treaty" does not.

That makes no sense. The only possible basis for effective future sanctions is a broad-based global treaty. You're coming awful close to echoing me while arguing with me:
Vrede too wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:15 am
If one were to imagine partial or total nuclear disarmament, wouldn't it always begin with external pressure like the treaty and internal pressure like the petition?
Earlier you spoke of the new treaty's "penalties and its plan for future action." It has no penalties for those who don't sign on.

Duh, but it does for the signatories, including arguably for abetting the WMD powers, thus leading to noncooperation or realistically even to the sanctions you mention.

No plan for future action beyond its own creation.

:headscratch: I was going to cite examples, but kept finding them on every page.

Like the Moon Treaty, nothing that makes it more than a meaningless gesture. See my previous rant about slacktivism.

See my previous post about organizing a Twitter campaign.

Pointing that out does NOT meant that ANY action is a meaningless gesture. (As just one example, countries can pass laws against buying from torture states and countries stocking WMDs.

This treaty, along with other things unique to individual nations, would provide a basis for such individual and collective laws, just as international conventions on torture and WMDs do. Did you sneer at them, too?

A North Korea is a United States is a Russia.)

Agreed. You seem to keep trying to get my goat ( ;) ) by dissing the US. That might work with a jingoist, but not with a globalist, 41-year (first arrest at a missile base Hiroshima Day 1976) anti-nuclear weapons activist like me.
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 18491
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by Vrede too » Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:47 pm

Vrede too wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:51 pm
rstrong wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:27 pm
It would have been unusual had Ukraine not lost Crimea and most of Donbass.

We disagree. Ukraine still should have shed its possibly unusable nukes. They could easily be the bad guys 5 years from now and were under their former leadership.
Vrede too wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:43 pm
Again, no need to convince me re the NPT. The whole point here is increasing the pressure, not throwing up ones hands and saying that nothing can be done, 4500 nukes are as eternal as God.
Well sure. But marches on the inside and sanctions from the outside exert pressure. Another "Moon Treaty" does not.

That makes no sense. The only possible basis for effective future sanctions is a broad-based global treaty. You're coming awful close to echoing me while arguing with me:
Vrede too wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:15 am
If one were to imagine partial or total nuclear disarmament, wouldn't it always begin with external pressure like the treaty and internal pressure like the petition?
Earlier you spoke of the new treaty's "penalties and its plan for future action." It has no penalties for those who don't sign on.

Duh, but it does for the signatories, including arguably for abetting the WMD powers, thus leading to noncooperation or realistically even to the sanctions you mention.

No plan for future action beyond its own creation.

:headscratch: I was going to cite examples, but kept finding them on every page.

Like the Moon Treaty, nothing that makes it more than a meaningless gesture. See my previous rant about slacktivism.

See my previous post about organizing a Twitter campaign.

Pointing that out does NOT meant that ANY action is a meaningless gesture. (As just one example, countries can pass laws against buying from torture states and countries stocking WMDs.

This treaty, along with other things unique to individual nations, would provide a basis for such individual and collective laws, just as international conventions on torture and WMDs do. Did you sneer at them, too?

A North Korea is a United States is a Russia.)

Agreed. You seem to keep trying to get my goat ( ;) ) by dissing US treaty violations and hypocrisy. That might work with a jingoist, but not with a globalist, 41-year (first arrest at a missile base Hiroshima Day 1976) anti-nuclear weapons activist like me. I'm for any step that increases the pressure. This is just the one that the experts, activists and diplomats, none of which you are, from around the world have chosen for now.
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 18491
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by Vrede too » Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:16 pm

Image

122 Nations Create Treaty to Ban Nuclear Weapons

On Friday the United Nations concluded the creation of the first multilateral nuclear disarmament treaty in over 20 years, and the first treaty ever to ban all nuclear weapons. While 122 nations voted yes, the Netherlands voted no, Singapore abstained, and numerous nations didn’t show up at all....

Our job now, as citizens of this hapless world, is to lobby every government — including the Netherlands’ — to join and ratify the treaty. While it falls short on nuclear energy, it is a model law on nuclear weapons that sane human beings have been waiting for since the 1940s. Check it out:

Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to:

(a) Develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;

(b) Transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly;

(c) Receive the transfer of or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices directly or indirectly;

(d) Use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;

(e) Assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty;

(f) Seek or receive any assistance, in any way, from anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty;

(g) Allow any stationing, installation or deployment of any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or at any place under its jurisdiction or control.


Not bad, huh?

Of course this treaty will have to be expanded to include all nations. And the world will have to develop a respect for international law. Some nations, including North Korea and Russia and China, may be quite reluctant to give up their nuclear weapons even if the United States does so, as long as the United States maintains such enormous dominance in terms of non-nuclear military capacities and its pattern of launching aggressive wars. That’s why this treaty has to be part of a broader agenda of demilitarization and war abolition.

But this treaty is a big step in the right direction.... That means investments in it are illegal. Complicity with it is illegal. Defense of it is shameful. Academic collaboration with it is disreputable. In other words, we have launched into a period of stigmatizing as something less than acceptable the act of preparing to annihilate all life on earth....
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
rstrong
Captain
Posts: 5889
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Winnipeg, MB

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by rstrong » Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:57 pm

Vrede too wrote:
Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:16 pm
That means investments in it are illegal. Complicity with it is illegal.
...In the countries that have signed and ratified it. Existing and future nuclear powers that are not parties to the treaty are not doing anything illegal.

The shaming on the other hand would be real. Sanctions would be real. The problem is that refusing trade with the US is a whole lot less effective than with Iran, the US's economy being so large. And it wouldn't be just the US; it's the US, China, and India. That's a HUGE percentage of the world economy on the sanctioned side of the barrier, still doing business as usual with each other. It reminds me of the Sunday Times headline "Storm Closes Channel; Continent Isolated."

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 18491
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by Vrede too » Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:05 pm

Agreed, refusing trade with the US or the others would be a big step and impractical for most. Maybe in the future. However, more focused actions are possible, if there's ratification and if citizens demand it. If I were in charge I might look at things like port calls by nuclear weapons ships, campaigns against nuclear weapons companies, specific tech noncooperation, etc. Reducing overt complicity will be an easier sell than proactive measures like sanctions. The treaty is a stepping stone, not an end in itself.
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 18491
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by Vrede too » Tue Aug 01, 2017 2:46 pm

It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
rstrong
Captain
Posts: 5889
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Winnipeg, MB

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by rstrong » Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:07 pm

Interesting; I remember this method of nuclear waste disposal being proposed at least 35 years ago. Mail it back and forth across the country until it all disappears. The disappearance being so complete and untraceable that one can only assume it gets shifted to another dimension.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 18491
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by Vrede too » Sat Aug 05, 2017 7:46 pm

It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 18491
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Nuclear weapons

Unread post by Vrede too » Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:54 pm

Stop Trump from starting a nuclear war

Image

The petition to Congress reads:

Donald Trump currently has unrestricted power to launch thousands of nuclear weapons at will. Support H.R. 669, the Restricting the First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, to stop him from starting a nuclear war.
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

Post Reply