Why do you feel everyone wants Nuclear bombs?

[still learning]

Hello, Why do you think everyone want to have Nuclear bombs?

Is it because they want to have a big stick too? "you carry a gun...I carry a gun....You have tanks...I have tanks...and so on...!

Wouldn't it be nice it they (nuclear bombs) are actully USE.....then people will know why? It should be ban for everyone!

......Aloha

 

[beau_safken]

Penis envy....Think that pretty much sums it up.

 

[elder999]

Hello, Why do you think everyone want to have Nuclear bombs?

Is it because they want to have a big stick too? "you carry a gun...I carry a gun....You have tanks...I have tanks...and so on...!

Wouldn't it be nice it they (nuclear bombs) are actully USE.....then people will know why? It should be ban for everyone!

......Aloha

Well, yeah, it should be, and it would be nice if there weren't any (see Amazing Grace and Chuck)

• Nuclear weapons are a natural outgrowth of nuclear power programs-countries such as Canada that have the one and not the other notwithstanding.Non-proliferation modeling is currently based on the idea that nuclear power is desirable for developing nations. I’m not saying that you can’t have one without the other, but one naturally follows the other-non-proliferation is aimed at controlling this.

• Because of this model and the way it has been administered, it has become desirable for nations that could develop the bomb to do so, merely because this leads to increased aid and spending from the U.S., and the U.N. , as in the case of India, Pakistan and North Korea. (Personally, I’d cut of all U.S. aid and tell them to eat their damn bombs…)

• The U.N. has no teeth to enforce non-proliferation.

• It is highly desirable for countries that are neighbored by nations that they perceive as a threat to seek the “ultimate response.”Likewise, it is just as desirable for those nations that are already threatened by the nuclear weapons of another nation to seek them, vis a vis, (with the nation that sought weapons preceding the one that already had them)Pakistan vs. India, Iran vs. Israel, India vs. China, Russia or fill in the blank vs. U.S., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

 

[Andrew Green]

Well, the logic seems to be "If we have nukes, no one will risk a major assault on us"

There is some truth to that, if Iraq had the ability to launch a counter strike with Nukes on US soil do you think the US would have risked it and invaded?

Still, I think everyone would be better off if no one had them.

 

[Raewyn]

New Zealand is nuclear free! Hence our relationship with The United States has always been shaky.

 

[evenflow1121]

Very few countries truly trust each other. So you have nukes I guess it makes a country feel like another will be more cautious of invading or attacking them.

 

[Cryozombie]

Hello, Why do you think everyone want to have Nuclear bombs?

Well, I want some so that my claims to being a mad scientist would no longer be challenged.

After all, its hard to claim that the IR emitter you built for your NVS out of old flashlight parts is a Doomsday Device and be taken seriously.

 

[elder999]

Well, I want some so that my claims to being a mad scientist would no longer be challenged.

After all, its hard to claim that the IR emitter you built for your NVS out of old flashlight parts is a Doomsday Device and be taken seriously.

he-he, "mad scientist." Trust me, that is a very exclusive club you want no part of...........

 

[FearlessFreep]

After all, its hard to claim that the IR emitter you built for your NVS out of old flashlight parts is a Doomsday Device and be taken seriously.

Dude, no one will take you seriously until you show both the will and the ability. Be a little pro-active, man

 

[Don Roley]

Well, the logic seems to be "If we have nukes, no one will risk a major assault on us"

In most cases. Take a look at both Pakistan and India. Bad blood on both sides. Both developed the bomb due to the fear of the other in accordence with what you lay out.

But I think that North Korea is another case. I don't think that they honestly believe that they would be threatened by the south or the US if they actied decently towards others.

The part in italics is a huge condition. Some countries like Zimbabwe are just as nasty, but don't do the things to their neighbors or the US that North Korea does. It is an open secret that they conterfeit South Korean, Japanese and American currency. They have kidnapped people from other countries, blown up airplanes, given support to terrorists, etc.

So the only thing they can hope to do to prevent the US form spanking them is to develop a credible threat.

Zimbabwe, as bad as it is, does not feel the need for nukes. But North Korea is a bit different.

In short, it is kind of a case by case deal and there is no one clear answer.

 

[elder999]

In most cases. Take a look at both Pakistan and India. Bad blood on both sides. Both developed the bomb due to the fear of the other in accordence with what you lay out.

But I think that North Korea is another case. I don't think that they honestly believe that they would be threatened by the south or the US if they actied decently towards others.

The part in italics is a huge condition. Some countries like Zimbabwe are just as nasty, but don't do the things to their neighbors or the US that North Korea does. It is an open secret that they conterfeit South Korean, Japanese and American currency. They have kidnapped people from other countries, blown up airplanes, given support to terrorists, etc.

So the only thing they can hope to do to prevent the US form spanking them is to develop a credible threat.

Zimbabwe, as bad as it is, does not feel the need for nukes. But North Korea is a bit different.

In short, it is kind of a case by case deal and there is no one clear answer.

Actually, India wanted the bomb almost from the inception of its independence.

As long as the world is constituted as it is, every country will have to devise and use the latest devices for its protection. I have no doubt India will develop her scientific researches and I hope Indian scientists will use the atomic force for constructive purposes. But if India is threatened, she will inevitably try to defend herself by all means at her disposal."Jawaharlal Nehru, June 26, 1946

India conducted their first nuclear test in 1974-their program led to Pakistan's pursuing one, of course, but India's reasons for their nuclear program were varied, and included the the threat of China, as well as the now outmoded idea of "peaceful nuclear explosions," for purposes such as mining and construction.

North Korea, your almost entirely accurate observations notwithstanding, has primarily sought nuclear weapons as a form of leverage over the international community to seek economic concessions, principally from the U.S. Ditto their delivery system programs. Remember, Don, that our government sent me there as an IAEA delegate in 1994. If I had my way, they'd eat their bombs, but eventually they'll probably get around to using them, as you've observed, unless something is done to prevent that.

Your last sentence, though, is completely accurate, and partly an effect of past history-little has been done to deter the development of nuclear weapons by others, and the past model of "mutually assured destruction" led to their further proliferation, and the eventual current perceived misbalance in nuclear power will continue to lead to more nations seeking and attaining a nucler capability-just because they can, in some instances.Zimbabwe, as bad as it is, hasn't the resources to develop nuclear weapons, except perhaps for uranium ore, which is found just about everywhere (Lesley Groves found that out when he tried to corner the world's supply during the Manhattan Project.)

 

[DavidCC]

I can only speak for myself...

I want one because I am afraid of being invaded by the Pakistani in the next cube..

 

[Touch Of Death]

People will take you seriously. Lets just say 400 people die everyday of starvation within your borders. You have managed to convince your people that all your failings are a result of bullying from nuclear countries. The mere mention of the bomb promises medicine, food, and a say in global economics and politics. And of course, we all know Hittler would have gladly destroyed Europe so that all the Aryan peoples would not have to live in a world that he did not rule; so, its an I win or we all lose thing.
Sean

 

[Bigshadow]

Because their neighbors have them. It is a case of trying to one-up each other.

 

[Don Roley]

North Korea, your almost entirely accurate observations notwithstanding, has primarily sought nuclear weapons as a form of leverage over the international community to seek economic concessions, principally from the U.S. Ditto their delivery system programs.

You're right. But that is also true of much of their military as a whole.

Which I guess kind of leads to the idea that may send Clausqitz spinning in his grave. The development of nuclear weapons is an extension of their military aim by other means.

In some cases you have countries trying to use their military force to become regional powers and make others listen to them. China, the Soviet Union and Iran probably fall into this catagory. In some cases you have countries that want to grasp at the idea that they are still a superpower- like France. And some countires have developed nuclear weapons because they were afraid someone else was going to use one on them first- i.e. America in WWII.

Hence, no one clear answer. Look at the country and what it is trying to do in the world and you get the answer for that country and no other.

 

[rutherford]

During the cold war a fun phrase was "Mutually Assured Destruction".

I always liked the sound of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction

 

[elder999]

During the cold war a fun phrase was "Mutually Assured Destruction".

I always liked the sound of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction

MAD is obsolete-the best way to describe what led to the current situation, and where the U.S. really stands in this arena is "OFF."

That's Opportunity For First-strike.

SDI, Star wars, whatever you want to call it, back in the late 80's we convinced the Soviets on several fronts that we actually had several of the elements in place to achieve it, and it would have tipped the balance of power from MAD to OFF, in the hands of what they saw in Reagan as a fundamentalist-Christian, right-wing longtime Commie-hater, who saw it as his life's mission to topple the "Evil Empire,"and were convinced that, given the "projections" (loss of as much as 30% of the U.S. population,near total annihilation for the U.S.S.R.) figured that we would strike first.By the time Bush I was in office, they had bankrupted themselves trying to maintain parity with what was, in reality, a complete sham. The breakup of the Soviet Union has led to their entire nuclear infrastructure falling into nearly complete disarray, and really doesn't represent a substantive threat anymore-especially with Russia being our "ally" in the war on terror, an most especially dependent upon us for economic development and the devlopment of their as-yet untapped resources-we (the U.S.) are the peerlsess, unparallelled nulear might in the world (and pretty much always have been)which begs the real question that "still learning " should have asked-

Nuclear Weapons-why does the U.S. still have them, and so damn many of them, as well?

 

[rutherford]

MAD was always a bit crazy, and was never a good idea if a rogue state got ahold of weapons.

 

[Don Roley]

which begs the real question that "still learning " should have asked-

Nuclear Weapons-why does the U.S. still have them, and so damn many of them, as well?

Because once you let the genie out of the bottle it is hard to get it back in. With the world today, I would rather the US have nuclear weapons than get rid of them. If we got rid of them, and a country like Iran or North Korea got them, what could we do?

And for all we know, in ten years Russia could be a clone of the Soviet Union again, Stalin and all. It would take us a lot longer time to rebuild our missle fleet than it would to get rid of them. And we do not know what will happen or when.

 

[still learning]

Hello, It is amazing how one person (the leader) can get everyone else involved to go to war.

There should be a vote on this? ..............Aloha