Suffering the weapons of mass destruction

[Slut_boy]

I am doing some research, and would love to guage the response of some of you to the legality of states maintaning and building weapons of mass destruction - atomic and nuclear bombs.

Its my view that they ought to be outlawed for all states by the security council. The US and France believe that they ought to be able to keep them only for "purposes of self-defence". To be honest, I find that logic a miss. I am working on my reasons but would love to hear from you. Any comments at all would be greatly appreciated. I truly do value the input of the BB.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

There is no logic......

When it comes to security of the planet, war, weapons or war and mass destruction.

Except that it all exists. It has become a reality in our lives that can't be wished away even though anyone with any brains would want to do so. This unfortunate reality must be dealt with accordingly.

Since people got'em and are makin'em, and there are those makin'em whose beliefs are very contrary to ours here in the US (the so called free world) - then there must be an assumption made that "they" plan to use them. At the very least you have to assume that these weapons could be accidentally discharged to great harmful effect.

If those assumptions are to be taken as a serious possibility, a serious threat - as I believe they are - you must plan accordingly. If that means counter production to balance or negate an opponents power - then this must be done. If it is not - "they" (the bad guys) will win.

Now we couldn't have that now could we?

 

[Silverlily]

The US and France believe that they ought to be able to keep them only for "purposes of self-defence". To be honest, I find that logic a miss.

Only when you leave out the human factor. Yes, ideally if no one had these weapons for offence, no one would need them for defence. But they do exist as such. Who would be the first to step down? The United States has spent decades living with the Cold War concept. I believe it will take more than a few years to overcome that. In the meantime, it is a chance many are unwilling to take.

I have worked on weapons like this, I know the destructive force they contain. I would love to give my daughters a world where they were unnecessary. But, unfortunately, with nations like Iraq working to develop nuclear capability, I do not believe it will ever happen.

 

[R Nitelight]

The world will not end in fire, my friends, but in ice. I have no fear of the bomb. What scares me is something crawling around in a petri dish somewhere accidentally being released into the airstream. That's when there'll be bodies everywhere.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Personally, I would prefer weapons of mass destruction be totally done away with. But I understand the position of the US and France very well, as well. There are nations out there, Reagan called them Rouge Nations, and that seems to fit, whose leaders would use these weapons of mass destruction if they thought they could get away with it. For instance, North Korea, one of the leading manufacturers of nuclear weaponry, recently shot off the Tepong 3, a 3 stage inter continental ballistic missile, over the northern coast of Japan. It was a test of the missile, and it appears to have failed, though NK claims otherwise. Currently they have ICBMs that are fully capable of reaching as far into the US as the Mississippi river. The other direction, I believe they can reach most of western europe. If they perfect the Tepong 3, then they can reach any place in the world with it. The scary part of all of this is that nuclear weapons are NK's largest export.

Some may think it's silly to be concerned over whether or not North Korea would start a nuclear war, but considering who is in charge over there, I don't think it's silly at all. Kim Jong-Il is the son of the man the Russians put in charge immediately after World War 2. His father died several years ago, but Kim still carries on as if his dead father were ruling right along with him. But thats not nearly as bad as something he once publicly claimed. He stated that he doesn't need but 30% of his people for his country to prosper. The other 70% are expendable in the war. Right now there is mass starvation and atrocities being committed by this government. Now, if he feels that way about his own people, whom he professes to love, whats to stop him from just getting rid of those of us he hates?

Oddly enough, on of the first episodes of that TV series in the US Major Dad, put it in the bluntest way. The reporter woman he married was against arms buildup and military. He didn't explain his position, he merely told her to attack him. She refused. He asked why. She said because he was well trained and well prepared to defend against attack.

The bad thing about all of this is that it just proves how little trust the human race has in each other. We would kill of other races and other people simply because we don't like the way they do things. Rather than try to work it out, we prove our points through terroristic activities.

I don't think that nuclear proliferation does much of anything for us anyway. The US is so astoundingly simple to debilitate its not even funny. We have weakened our military, overworked them, and sent our best and brightest to the civilian sector. Not to mention none of our cities are prepared for an attack, nor do we have our basic infrastructures protected. But thats another subject.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Hey Slut_Boy!!!!

DUCK AND COVER - MOTHER FUCKER!!!!!!!!!!

I live in two of the most likely ground zero points in the US - the world. DC and NYC.

I just hope I'm back at least far enough to witness the beauty of it. Beeing that it'll be the last thing I ever see.

I'd like to be on a roof-top a good 30 miles away - I'd stand up, arms outstretched like Jesus on the cross - looking straight at the light - then, I'd watch for the shock wave comming toward me - pray for my family, my fiends and all of mankind.

Then, trying to time it just right, I'd turn and try to body surf that god damn shock wave with a king-sized wah hoooooo!

Duck and Cover my ass.

 

[Purple Haze]

Can't worry about it. Nuclear weapons have been around for over fifty years, and the threat has always been there, whether it be the Cold War, or third world terrorists, or whoever the fuck, no point in worrying about it. If a bomb drops, please let it land on me.

I don't see much reason for another country to nuke us. What would they eat? What would they gain? Jack shit. They know it, we know it, and who do you think would have the most sophisticated defense against an attack if it were to actually happen? Uncle Sam has always looked after it's own interests, the Gulf War was a good example of that. Had anybody heard of a Patriot Missle before they were actually used? Did anybody actually believe little Iraq even stood a chance? It had to be the most lop-sided victory in the history of human war.

Build your bunkers and fallout shelters, hole up with your automatic weapons and 35 cases of tuna. Be scared of China, a billion people that need our food supply.

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling".

Can't do anything about it, can't worry about it,

[Edited by Purple Haze on 10-09-2000 at 11:44 AM]

 

[R Nitelight]

That's easy for you to say, PH. You have Leroy to protect you.

 

[Purple Haze]

And he smells like Aqua Velva too. What a kidder.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Excellent post, KillerMuffin! I haven't read such a good post on the board since a little thread on the physics of ejaculation.

My take on this subject is this:

Of course the world will be a better and safer place when and if we get rid of all nuclear weapons. I can't imagine that anyone would argue against that. However, as Ms. Muffin and several other posters argued above, the problem is how do we guarantee the "rogue states" of the world comply with the ban?

The idea that the UN Security Council (at least as it currently exists) could effectively enforce the complete ban on nuclear weapons that you propose seems very shaky at best. I think we all remember the almost comical attempts of the United Nations "security team" of weapons inspectors to sniff out Saddam's biological and chemical weapons. As soon as the inspectors showed up at the front door of a suspected Iraqi chemical weapons facility, the Iraqis would run out the back door with the evidence. There are satellite photographs of this occurring.

I don't fault the UN's efforts and I don't know what else they could've done. But do we really want to trade the deterrent of nuclear retaliation for a bunch of guys knocking on Saddam's front door?

I'm the first to admit that deterrence is inferior to no weapons at all, but until you convince me that crazy dictators aren't going to have nukes, it's the best defense we have. A foreign leader would have to be certifiably insane and suicidal to start a nuclear war with the United States. Not even Saddam is that crazy.

Unilateral disarmament without a guarantee of corresponding disarmament is simply irresponsible. It places a naive trust in the good faith of 3rd world dictators who routinely demonstrate a callous disregard for human life and in a weak United Nations without means of effectively enforcing a ban.

Until we can guarantee that we're safe against them, we should keep our nukes.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

My too numerous spook friends....

at NSA assure me that - the UN blows dead rats! It has nothing left but minor political power and that it's role in the future of our world will be nil. AND! That "there are" dictators crazy enough to do what we would think to be stupid crazy shit. Why? Religion.

 

[Purple Haze]

Yes, Sparky's right. Religon + Politics = HATE

Keep these two apart, they're always causing problems.

They're okay when they're kept busy in separate rooms.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

I say.....

just fuckin' kill anyone in politics or religious and if'n they be both - kill'em twice. Who needs a world full of Al Sharptons' anyway?

 

[Fallen Angel]

Well while it would be nice to get back to the good ole days when you looked your enemy in the eyes before you tried to hack him to pieces but I am afraid that those days are gone for the time being.

I hope and pray that the powers that be will slowly thin their weapons and try and leave only the cleaner ones. I understand the reasoning behind the missle defense system but doubt that it would ever do much more than make a bad thing worse. One bomb will cause lots of fallout in areas never intended to be hurt, any extras sent as retaliation will only make matters worse. The number of bombs that it would take to send us into a nuclear winter is really quite small compared to the number we know of that are out there now.

It does seem a little strange to me that the US or any other country would think that they needed more than just a double handful of the big nukes. It only took three little ones to bring Japan to a halt and we are all still living with the after effects of that today.

The problem with outlawing weapons falls back to the gun control theme, "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns." This of couse is a catch 22 in that if guns are outlawed and you have one then you are an outlaw. I don't really have a problem with the major powers having and controlling atomic weapons but it does leave the door open for abuse. The situtation in the USSR over the last decade or so, shows that even large somewhat stable world powers can fall apart leaving their arsonals to the smaller countrys where they were stationed.

The golden rule must come into effect for this one ie He who has the gold makes the rules. So slut_boy my friend I guess that it is my opinion that it is legal for the powers that be to set the rules of the game even if they don't set them fairly or wisely.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Clean weapons? Clean killing?

Nothing seems cleaner to me than a nuke, chemicals or germs. Fact is the nuke is the ultimate cleansing device. Hell, when it's done there's nothing much left - all life has to start over. Seems pretty clean to me. Poof! Gone. Clean.

 

[CreamyLady]

There is no logic in keeping weapons of mass destruction for defense. It's a little like swatting a mosquito with a cannon -- overkill.

Their very existence is deplorable. However, I cannot think who could be trusted to see to the disposal of each weapon on the planet. Forgive me, but the UN is the last organization I would entrust with the project.

Definitely one should ignore those bottles on the beach. One never knows just which djinn is inside.

 

[Myrrdin]

There have always been weapons of mass destruction. From the earliest days when a siege force would catapult rotten corpses into the castle they were besieging, to spread disease. Or even infect the water supplies.
Right through mustard gas, nerve gas, anthrax etc.
The fact that the nuclear weapon can do it on such a huge scale, maybe the reason its never used again. Any country that fired one off could find the radiation cloud, been blown back onto itself. The nuclear equivalent of pissing into the wind.
There are parts of the UK, where livestock are still checked for radiation levels, following the fallout from the Chernobyl accident. The prevailing winds were blowing in this direction at the time.
Anyway the MAD theory, works for me. (Mutually Assured Destruction.)
Apparently the Pentagon is now working on the computer virus as a weapon. The ability to bring a country to its knees by crashing its entire computer system.
The ultimate capitalist weapon, bringing suffering to millions, while leaving the real estate standing.

 

[Expertise]

Al Sharptons hair is a fallout shelter

A couple of things SB, et al...

The most likely employment of a nulear device is by an entity that does not represent a state per se. (read as TERRORISTS). For example Russia has no fucking idea where approximately 40 of its "Backpack" (named because they are about the size of one) tactical nukes are. Easy to use and while hardly as devastating as say the 5 megaton airburst from an ICBM they are more than enough to ruin, YOUR WHOLE FUCKING DAY!u

Weapons of mass destruction are not limited to thermonuclear devices which are by comparison relatively easy to track and keep track of. They include the entire NBC (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical) spectrum. Including such wonderful things as persistent and non persistent chemical agents like Sarin and Tabun as well as plague agents, anthrax etc. The chemical and biological weapons are easier to produce in many cases and just as easily deliverable.

Last but by no means least your choice of an enforcement agency. The UN and its "Security" Council. Jesus wept SB. As one who has operated under their control I assure you that there is no more incompetent or impotent organization on this planet. Actualy, think about it. For example, all the current nuclear powers (remembering that that list does not include all the states who have weps. of mass destruction) decide to jump on the "peace train" except say Israel (just an example). The Israelis for reasons, far nobler than most, say thanks but no thanks we need are nukes and are gonna' keep 'em. The United Nations has no power beyond, say sanctions, to do a damn thing about it or protect its members from them.Or more importantly, to deter the Israelis from lofting a Jericho II over Baghdad or Damascus (remembering that deterance is the best defence against nukes or any weapons of this nature). Something tells me that Fahim in Syria or Abdul in Iraq is going to feel less than happy about sanctions when hes just seen his kids immolated and his city vaporized. Meanwhile the UN is standing there (much like it already does) doing its imitation of an English "Bobby" on prozac giving them the old "STOP....or i'll say Stop again".

I won't argue about the despicable nature of these weapons. They and their effects are horrid, they are immeasurably evil in nature. But they only mirror the nature of man in the realm of war. Besides the fact that MAD (mutually assured destruction), while pretty scary, is a concept that has kept them from being used (in any great number) for the past 55 years is more comforting than the alternative. SB, if it ain't broke.... don't fix it. I dont wanna have ta' hide out in Al Sharptons hair.... i'd never get the smell of dippity doo outta' my clothes.

 

[BrainyBeauty]

Re: Al Sharptons hair is a fallout shelter

A couple of things SB, et al...

The most likely employment of a nulear device is by an entity that does not represent a state per se. (read as TERRORISTS).
Weapons of mass destruction are not limited to thermonuclear devices which are by comparison relatively easy to track and keep track of. They include the entire NBC (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical) spectrum. The chemical and biological weapons are easier to produce in many cases and just as easily deliverable.

I agree, Expertise. CW and BW terrify me most. Like the Sarin of your example that was tested in Japan's subway a couple of years ago, it would be so easy for a cell or terrorist group to leave a briefcase in a public throughway or to park a car in front of a large building.

I certainly discount an aerial attack as likely since our defenses would have time to shut down any such efforts and the effectiveness of such a compound would be highly diluted in the upper atmosphere and have minimal impact on the ground.

What is a more likely, and thus, more terrifying scenario, would be the innocent looking John Doe who gets a job at the local water treatment facility and manages to poison the supply. Can't go too long without water now can we?

I think it behooves the industrialized nations to maintain their stockpiles of weapons- for defensive purposes simply because the threat of us using it does seem to be an effective deterrent since we have used it in the past.

Before I start sounding too paranoid, I will end with this thought- paraphrased from the movie War Games...

"The only solution is not to play"

 

[Ezzy]

MAD mad mad...

The world is mad, and mad is the world.

Mutually Assured Destruction, the tenet of the free world that “allowed” us to survive the cold war.

The unfortunate side effect of such a MAD policy is that once you accept it as an idea; it is impossible to turn the idea that it works off, in the minds of the military and politicians of any country.

The prospect of being the first country to disarm, all would quiver and quake at the thought, of not being able to destroy any country that attacked your own.

As you could see from the success, of the disabling and destruction, of those parts of the US and USSR (I know it is not any more but they created them) missile forces, but they only removed the older and less accurate systems.

This whole exercise was a cost saving one, remove less efficient weapons but still maintain enough force in the combined arsenals, to remove human life from the world 4 or 5 times over.

Will we ever give up the MAD idea, I doubt we every will.

Will those countries with nuclear capabilities ever give them up; sure they will but only to replace them with weapons of even greater destructive power.

EZ http://smilecwm.tripod.com/cwm2/sleep.gif http://smilecwm.tripod.com/net4/grenade.gif


[Edited by Ezzy on 10-09-2000 at 05:37 PM]

 

[Slut_boy]

There are some great minds on this thread. What most of you say rings very true for most, I am sure. But most of you seem to deal with the mechanics of enforcement. I agree that to enforce the law will be difficult. But we are not yet at the enforcement stage because there is no law making these weapons illegal.

My feeling to the response of the US and France is that even in self-defence they violate every legal principle. Self-defence in law rests on two pillars: (i) you must direct the force against the one who attacked you only; and (ii) the amount of force used can't be disproportionate.

In Hiroshima and Nagasaki the effects of the bombs are still being felt today. Children, some 50 years later are being born disformed and disabled. They didn't attack Pearl Harbour - hell they weren't even born yet. And so the weapons fall on the first pillar of the self-defence test.

And then the bombs kill indiscriminately - innocent women and children. Both civilians and combatants die. Residences, schools and hospitals are all destroyed in the blaze. The harm is huge (far more than a military attack on warships in a harbour). The harm lasts - it is way disproportional. The bombs also fall on the second pillar of the self-defence test.

That means that the US and France's claim to keeping them for self-defence purposes is unwarranted because their use in self-defence will be illegal and excessive.

 

[Slut_boy]

Hi,

This last post of mine is really the thrust of my debate. Please will you give me your comment on these thoughts as well if you are interested. I am keen to know how much sense this approach makes to others. Its obviously a simplification. Where are you Harold and Bill - I have always valued your input immensely.

 

[Xander]

You know, I don't fear a nuclear holocaust. Simply because the chances for such a thing to happen is so very small.
It's scary though, when France or the US rattle their swords and do a few test bombings. I do definately not approve of that.
As many of you has stated the lasting effect of a nuclear explosion is massive. And can be felt through many many years. So much the reason to NOT fear it anymore.

Because of the effect we've seen from Japan it will never happen again. Even Iraq would have to think twice about using such a force. Sure, Iraq is twisted enough to do it. But the consequenses for using it would kill off the country.

Whoever I agree with RN. What is crawling around in a petri dish, should be feared to a much higher extend than any nuclear bomb.
Imagine this: Some twisted induvidual loads a large amount of Ebola Zaire virus in a small package, and dumps it in, let say NYC.
The virus is airborne and takes no more than 10 days to kill a human.
There is no antidote!!
Basically it works this way. You think you've gotten the flu. Get's massive headaches and feel weakened.
It WILL feel like a flu until the 3rd day.
By then you start to vomit. Extremely. And you will continue to do so until you die.
Your skin will losen itself, because the tissue underneth dies.
You'll start bleeding uncontrolled from all openings in your body. You intestents stop working after the 4th day.
Your brain after the 5th.
On the 7-10 day you body will die as you throw up the remains of your stomach, spraying it across the room you're in. You body does so, because there's a larger chance for the virus to spread that way.
What has happend, is your body has decomposed while you're still alive. Pretty much rottened away around you. And there's not a God damn thing you can do about it.
And everybody you've been in contact with, do have a 90% of having it, without even touching you.

Now imagine what would happen if someone dropped something like that in a major metropolitan city.

I'll leave the math up to you.

But if there's anything to fear. That would be it for me.

 

[Slut_boy]

Fuck it Xander,

That sounds pretty aweful. I am not sure that it is any worse than an atomic bomb however. Most people don't know this, but with atomic bombs people don't die from the shock waves - they burn to death.

The fission process (expertise will probably know better) creates a ball - the mushroom looking thing. It is a ball of fire that is so hot that it literally scorches everything. The ground temperature in Hiroshima was about 3500 degrees within a space of 1km of the fire ball (which lasts for about 10 seconds). People as far away as 2.5 km were getting burnt and dying from their burns.

I read an interview with the mayor of Hiroshima who said that a few hours after the disaster some of the people went down to the nearby river to get some water - their skin was literally falling off them in sheets. Of course both city hospitals were destroyed by the bomb and so there was no treatment for these people - they died a slow and very painful death. More that a third of the city die that day, and almost another third within a week or two thereafter.

Well done Enola Gay. Well done Little Boy. Well done to the unindicted war masters who play their games with peoples lives. A great case for a war crimes tribunal.

 

[Xander]

SB my friend. I didn't say it was worse than the effect of a nuclear explosion. God knows it's awful.

What I meant was, that there is a bigger chance that, if someone chooses to use a mass destructive force today. It won't be nuclear. It will be biological.
For two simple reasons.

1. Biological weapons kill with the same effeciency as nuclear weapons, and it will spread to a much larger area, and off much more people than a nuclear force.

2. It will leave all buildings standing, and you'll basically only have to clean out the corpses, and clean up the mess, before using them. And the attacking army can march straight in and get what they want, without tripping on rubble.

And I firmly believe that, neither Nuclear weaponry, or Biological weaponry, should be allowed.
And those countries who has one or both, should discard of it. RIGHT AWAY!