Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Basic
Offline
  • Joined Dec 2009
  • Posts 1859
  • EE 100% (32)
USA USA
Posted: 3/6/2014 10:42:31 AM EST
Wiki

On June 1, 1996 Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent the last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling.
View Quote


Considering current events, was this a bad idea? Did they have a choice at the time?

Mahna Mahna...Do doo be-do-do......
Avatar
Gold
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2005
  • Posts 14857
  • EE 100% (82)
USA NT, USA
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 10:44:06 AM EST
They had 1,900 of them, sure they had a choice.
Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country.
~John Adams
..............I4NI.................
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Mar 2001
  • Posts 36549
  • EE 100% (6)
USA HI, USA
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 10:45:20 AM EST
What about Chemical?

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Dec 2009
  • Posts 1860
  • EE 100% (32)
USA USA
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 10:48:35 AM EST
Just googled "why did Ukraine give up nuclear weapons", found this article in which the gist appears to be that Ukraine received security assurances in return for giving up nuclear weapons.


This isn't anything I've ever followed so I don't know the context of the decisions at the time.

BEST KOREA
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Apr 2012
  • Posts 5904
  • EE 100% (2)
PRK PRK
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 10:49:00 AM EST
They didn't really have the infrastructure to maintain them

The USSR kind of just left them there
Its Only Smellz
Basic
Offline
  • Joined Dec 2003
  • Posts 1070
  • EE 100% (45)
USA VA, USA
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 10:52:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/6/2014 10:55:17 AM EST by Beach]
Originally Posted By BSWilson:
Wiki

On June 1, 1996 Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent the last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling.
View Quote


Considering current events, was this a bad idea? Did they have a choice at the time?
View Quote


DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO WAS THE ARCHITECT OF THIS PLAN? None other than Sen Barack H Obama and Sen Lugar...

Funny, one of Obama's first acts as President was to classify his masters thesis on Nuclear Disarmament? Curious...

He also had them destroy as part of the treaty nearly 700,000 TONS of small arms, ammunition and artillery pieces...leaving the Ukrainian .mil a ghost of its former self and preventing nearly ALL of that 7.62 x 39 goodness from ever making its ways to our shore as surplus...

Basic
Online
  • Joined May 2005
  • Posts 16291
  • EE 100% (1)
USA IN, USA
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 10:52:55 AM EST
The US paid them to give them up.
The cash was spent - or stolen - long ago.
It seems they chose pooorly.

Basic
Online
  • Joined May 2005
  • Posts 16292
  • EE 100% (1)
USA IN, USA
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 10:55:27 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Beach:


DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO WAS THE ARCHITECT OF THIS PLAN? None other than Sen Barack H Obama and Sen Lugar...

Funny, one of Obama's first acts as President was to classify his masters thesis on Nuclear Disarmament? Curious...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Beach:
Originally Posted By BSWilson:
Wiki

On June 1, 1996 Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent the last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling.


Considering current events, was this a bad idea? Did they have a choice at the time?


DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO WAS THE ARCHITECT OF THIS PLAN? None other than Sen Barack H Obama and Sen Lugar...

Funny, one of Obama's first acts as President was to classify his masters thesis on Nuclear Disarmament? Curious...


Not to put too fine a point on it but Obama wasn't a US Senator in 1996 ...

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2007
  • Posts 388
  • EE 100% (63)
USA FL, USA
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 10:55:47 AM EST
BHO would do the same here to US if he got the chance. With same results in the end. Same philosophy about guns too.

Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Apr 2007
  • Posts 2956
  • EE 100% (13)
UKR UKR
Military
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 10:58:33 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Beach:


DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO WAS THE ARCHITECT OF THIS PLAN? None other than Sen Barack H Obama and Sen Lugar...

Funny, one of Obama's first acts as President was to classify his masters thesis on Nuclear Disarmament? Curious...

He also had them destroy as part of the treaty nearly 700,000 TONS of small arms, ammunition and artillery pieces...leaving the Ukrainian .mil a ghost of its former self and preventing nearly ALL of that 7.62 x 39 goodness from ever making its ways to our shore as surplus...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Beach:
Originally Posted By BSWilson:
Wiki

On June 1, 1996 Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent the last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling.


Considering current events, was this a bad idea? Did they have a choice at the time?


DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO WAS THE ARCHITECT OF THIS PLAN? None other than Sen Barack H Obama and Sen Lugar...

Funny, one of Obama's first acts as President was to classify his masters thesis on Nuclear Disarmament? Curious...

He also had them destroy as part of the treaty nearly 700,000 TONS of small arms, ammunition and artillery pieces...leaving the Ukrainian .mil a ghost of its former self and preventing nearly ALL of that 7.62 x 39 goodness from ever making its ways to our shore as surplus...

Do you have a source for this? I would love to read Obamas thesis someday, even though that will never happen.

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2007
  • Posts 389
  • EE 100% (63)
USA FL, USA
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 10:59:53 AM EST
BTW, Obama went to the Ukraine in 2006 (when he was a SENATOR) along with Mccain to push through the disarmament signed in '96. Signed it again in 2009. They promissed Ukraine that their borders will be secured and protected after they gave up their weapons. Nothing says F%#& YOU UKRAINE better than this...

Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Apr 2007
  • Posts 2957
  • EE 100% (13)
UKR UKR
Military
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 11:00:56 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:


Not to put too fine a point on it but Obama wasn't a US Senator in 1996 ...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Beach:
Originally Posted By BSWilson:
Wiki

On June 1, 1996 Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent the last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling.


Considering current events, was this a bad idea? Did they have a choice at the time?


DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO WAS THE ARCHITECT OF THIS PLAN? None other than Sen Barack H Obama and Sen Lugar...

Funny, one of Obama's first acts as President was to classify his masters thesis on Nuclear Disarmament? Curious...


Not to put too fine a point on it but Obama wasn't a US Senator in 1996 ...

per WiKi "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996"

Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Sep 2004
  • Posts 13818
  • EE 0% (0)
USA TX, USA
NRA
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 11:06:14 AM EST
Every potential ally of the US must be taught that agreements with the US are not worth the paper they are printed on. We will abandon our friends faster than deny aid to our enemies.

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2012
  • Posts 340
  • EE 100% (11)
USA FL, USA
NRA
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 11:07:25 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By evo7011:
per WiKi "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996"
View Quote
He wasn't sworn in until 1997 and that was just as a State Senator.

Mahna Mahna...Do doo be-do-do......
Avatar
Gold
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2005
  • Posts 14864
  • EE 100% (82)
USA NT, USA
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 11:37:21 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By matthardcore:
They didn't really have the infrastructure to maintain them

The USSR kind of just left them there
View Quote

As a big fuck you, maybe the NATO countries should have helped them maintain a couple dozen.
Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country.
~John Adams
American
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Apr 2003
  • Posts 5777
  • EE 0% (0)
USA CA, USA
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 3:22:36 PM EST
Iraq learned this lesson the hard way, and North Korea is certain to be watching.

I suspect a lot of other countries are paying closer attention, too.
The difference between theory and reality is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality, but in reality, there is.
Sorcerer of Death's Construction
Avatar
Lifetime Member
Online
  • Joined Sep 2002
  • Posts 43086
  • EE 0% (0)
USA NC, USA
NRAMilitary
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 3:25:32 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By stevem1a:
Iraq learned this lesson the hard way, and North Korea is certain to be watching.

I suspect a lot of other countries are paying closer attention, too.
View Quote


Japan
S. Korea
Australia
Saudi Arabia
Germany
Poland
Czech Republic

Thats the short list who have the ability now to have a nuclear weapon within a year if they so choose and have the security reasons to do so.

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Nov 2009
  • Posts 2004
  • EE 0% (0)
USA FL, USA
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 3:29:43 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


Japan
S. Korea
Australia
Saudi Arabia
Germany
Poland
Czech Republic

Thats the short list who have the ability now to have a nuclear weapon within a year if they so choose and have the security reasons to do so.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By stevem1a:
Iraq learned this lesson the hard way, and North Korea is certain to be watching.

I suspect a lot of other countries are paying closer attention, too.


Japan
S. Korea
Australia
Saudi Arabia
Germany
Poland
Czech Republic

Thats the short list who have the ability now to have a nuclear weapon within a year if they so choose and have the security reasons to do so.


Only one on that list that slightly worries me is Saudi Arabia.

Put Not Your Faith in Princes
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Nov 2005
  • Posts 5619
  • EE 100% (46)
PCN PCN
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 3:31:13 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:


Not to put too fine a point on it but Obama wasn't a US Senator in 1996 ...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Beach:
Originally Posted By BSWilson:
Wiki

On June 1, 1996 Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent the last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling.


Considering current events, was this a bad idea? Did they have a choice at the time?


DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO WAS THE ARCHITECT OF THIS PLAN? None other than Sen Barack H Obama and Sen Lugar...

Funny, one of Obama's first acts as President was to classify his masters thesis on Nuclear Disarmament? Curious...


Not to put too fine a point on it but Obama wasn't a US Senator in 1996 ...
And Obama does not have a Master's Degree, so he would not have written a master's thesis.
The best part of all your self-inflicted drama is how happy it makes you.. how you're deeply fulfilled to your core, and how it makes you a better human being. It's freaking inspirational. - MMcCall
R0N
Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Aug 2004
  • Posts 16079
  • EE 100% (34)
USA USA
Military
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 3:31:33 PM EST
The assurances in 96 were given by the US (Clinton Admin), UK and China.
In the real world off-campus, good marksmanship trumps good will.
Supervisor of doing stuff
Avatar
Gold
Offline
  • Joined Sep 2013
  • Posts 422
  • EE 100% (4)
USA DC, USA
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 3:34:39 PM EST
It's generally a bad move to give up your whole ammo fort. Especially if your ammo fort happens to include 1900 nuclear devices.
NRA Life Member
American
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Apr 2003
  • Posts 5778
  • EE 0% (0)
USA CA, USA
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 3:37:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/6/2014 3:37:33 PM EST by stevem1a]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DrBackJack:


Only one on that list that slightly worries me is Saudi Arabia.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DrBackJack:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By stevem1a:
Iraq learned this lesson the hard way, and North Korea is certain to be watching.

I suspect a lot of other countries are paying closer attention, too.


Japan
S. Korea
Australia
Saudi Arabia
Germany
Poland
Czech Republic

Thats the short list who have the ability now to have a nuclear weapon within a year if they so choose and have the security reasons to do so.


Only one on that list that slightly worries me is Saudi Arabia.


The Russian reaction to Germany and/or Poland going nuclear worries me more than slightly.

Also, didn't both Brazil and Argentina flirt with starting a nuclear weapons program?
The difference between theory and reality is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality, but in reality, there is.
BEST KOREA
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Apr 2012
  • Posts 5913
  • EE 100% (2)
PRK PRK
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 8:34:35 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


Japan
S. Korea
Australia
Saudi Arabia
Germany
Poland
Czech Republic

Thats the short list who have the ability now to have a nuclear weapon within a year if they so choose and have the security reasons to do so.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By stevem1a:
Iraq learned this lesson the hard way, and North Korea is certain to be watching.

I suspect a lot of other countries are paying closer attention, too.


Japan
S. Korea
Australia
Saudi Arabia
Germany
Poland
Czech Republic

Thats the short list who have the ability now to have a nuclear weapon within a year if they so choose and have the security reasons to do so.



Australia?


I believe it on the others.
Its Only Smellz
BEST KOREA
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Apr 2012
  • Posts 5914
  • EE 100% (2)
PRK PRK
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 8:37:57 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By stevem1a:


The Russian reaction to Germany and/or Poland going nuclear worries me more than slightly.

Also, didn't both Brazil and Argentina flirt with starting a nuclear weapons program?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By stevem1a:
Originally Posted By DrBackJack:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By stevem1a:
Iraq learned this lesson the hard way, and North Korea is certain to be watching.

I suspect a lot of other countries are paying closer attention, too.


Japan
S. Korea
Australia
Saudi Arabia
Germany
Poland
Czech Republic

Thats the short list who have the ability now to have a nuclear weapon within a year if they so choose and have the security reasons to do so.


Only one on that list that slightly worries me is Saudi Arabia.


The Russian reaction to Germany and/or Poland going nuclear worries me more than slightly.

Also, didn't both Brazil and Argentina flirt with starting a nuclear weapons program?



Yes

Brazil should be on Sylvan's list IMO.

Argentina, Brazil, and even Mexico have surprisingly strong nuclear research and production facilities and people. But only Brazil would have the option to proceed with weapon production.
Its Only Smellz
Basic
Offline
  • Joined Jun 2007
  • Posts 8297
  • EE 0% (0)
USA TN, USA
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 9:04:23 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Beach:


DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO WAS THE ARCHITECT OF THIS PLAN? None other than Sen Barack H Obama and Sen Lugar...

Funny, one of Obama's first acts as President was to classify his masters thesis on Nuclear Disarmament? Curious...

He also had them destroy as part of the treaty nearly 700,000 TONS of small arms, ammunition and artillery pieces...leaving the Ukrainian .mil a ghost of its former self and preventing nearly ALL of that 7.62 x 39 goodness from ever making its ways to our shore as surplus...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Beach:
Originally Posted By BSWilson:
Wiki

On June 1, 1996 Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent the last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling.


Considering current events, was this a bad idea? Did they have a choice at the time?


DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO WAS THE ARCHITECT OF THIS PLAN? None other than Sen Barack H Obama and Sen Lugar...

Funny, one of Obama's first acts as President was to classify his masters thesis on Nuclear Disarmament? Curious...

He also had them destroy as part of the treaty nearly 700,000 TONS of small arms, ammunition and artillery pieces...leaving the Ukrainian .mil a ghost of its former self and preventing nearly ALL of that 7.62 x 39 goodness from ever making its ways to our shore as surplus...

So a state senator who was elected to the state senate months after this "Plan" engineered the whole thing, and he talks about this his Masters Thesis? I didn't know lawyers wrote master thesis'... At what point is this thesis written in law school.

Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Jan 2007
  • Posts 1707
  • EE 0% (0)
BGR BGR
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 9:41:36 PM EST
SS-18 was produced in Ukraine /Ukrainian SSR/:


Coherent Ramblings
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Nov 2007
  • Posts 41343
  • EE 100% (3)
USA NY, USA
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 9:48:36 PM EST


Seems like someone could draw an analogy to the anti-gunners' behavior in the US without too much trouble.


"And yet another Arfcom IQ test begins to claim its victims."

NRA Life Member
Peace through superior firepower.
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Mar 2003
  • Posts 3232
  • EE 100% (32)
USA WA, USA
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 9:50:48 PM EST
What does having nuclear weapons would do to them, or any country that does not have the means to detonate them on enemy's soil?

Even if the country also had the launchers, what makes them think they would be able to use them?

If they use them in their own soil, what are the outcomes?

If they use them in enemy's soil, what are the outcomes?

Do the US, Russia or any other think they can use a nuclear weapon (even a small tactical one) and things would go business as usual?

Just curious.




Sorcerer of Death's Construction
Avatar
Lifetime Member
Online
  • Joined Sep 2002
  • Posts 43087
  • EE 0% (0)
USA NC, USA
NRAMilitary
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 1:08:40 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Rossi:
What does having nuclear weapons would do to them, or any country that does not have the means to detonate them on enemy's soil? Countries listed also have the means to deliver. Either by ship, plane or missile

Even if the country also had the launchers, what makes them think they would be able to use them? If they have the means, they have the ability

If they use them in their own soil, what are the outcomes? Who knows?

If they use them in enemy's soil, what are the outcomes? Who knows?

Do the US, Russia or any other think they can use a nuclear weapon (even a small tactical one) and things would go business as usual? Who knows?

Just curious. Who ain't



View Quote


Lets take Iran and Saudi Arabia both nuclear armed, shall we.

5 minute time of flight to hit eithers' capital.
So, things get hot, they start posturing.
Typical nuke, only top executives can order the launching.
No early warning.
Whoever launches first knocks out the C2 for the others retaliatory strike.
Better yet, if you have 4 or 5. Whoever launches first knocks out both the C2 AND their retaliatory capability.

Free rider bonus. Remember, existential threats here. US used nukes. What happened?
If Saudi Arabia launches first and knocks out the mullahs AND their nukes.
Oh boo hoo. Whole world gets weepie eyed? WE gonna stop buying oil?
Would Saudi Arabia be willing to give up Riyadh to avoid a tersely worded letter from the UN?
But who knows?

Official ARFCOM nickname from NorCal_LEO: Einstein
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Jul 2005
  • Posts 10741
  • EE 0% (0)
USA TX, USA
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 1:47:29 AM EST
If you are the leader of a country with nukes an you are asked to give them up....your appropriate response is "No"

Member
Avatar
Platinum
Online
  • Joined Sep 2006
  • Posts 11049
  • EE 100% (2)
SOM SOM
NRAInstructorMilitary
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 1:55:59 AM EST
There was an old sci fi movie in the early 90's where we stopped an aline invasion by blowing up their mother ship with nukes from Ukraine.


In the movie, they were the last country on earth to keep them.
"Don't waste your good whiskey on a bad day"... Matt Breeding, 2008.

"The hardest thing in this world is to live in it"... Buffy Anne Summers, May 22, 2001
Coherent Ramblings
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Nov 2007
  • Posts 41348
  • EE 100% (3)
USA NY, USA
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 1:56:47 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
If you are the leader of a country with nukes an you are asked to give them up....your appropriate response is "No"
View Quote



"Will not comply!" also works.


"And yet another Arfcom IQ test begins to claim its victims."

NRA Life Member
Basic
Offline
  • Joined Dec 2012
  • Posts 324
  • EE 0% (0)
USA USA
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 2:02:56 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Rossi:
What does having nuclear weapons would do to them, or any country that does not have the means to detonate them on enemy's soil?

Even if the country also had the launchers, what makes them think they would be able to use them?

If they use them in their own soil, what are the outcomes?

If they use them in enemy's soil, what are the outcomes?

Do the US, Russia or any other think they can use a nuclear weapon (even a small tactical one) and things would go business as usual?

Just curious.



View Quote



Nuclear mine field across the border would make someone think before invading.

Dispensing happiness one MIRV at a time.
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Mar 2004
  • Posts 13020
  • EE 100% (1)
USA GA, USA
NRAMilitary
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 2:03:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/7/2014 2:03:36 AM EST by PanzerOfDoom]
Mutually assured destruction keeps the rational powers in check; unfortunately non-rational powers currently, or will soon, posses them.
"How strangely will the tools of a tyrant pervert the the plain meaning of words".- Samuel Adams
Member
Avatar
Platinum
Offline
  • Joined Mar 2002
  • Posts 30997
  • EE 100% (60)
USA USA
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 2:04:04 AM EST
As Qaddafi figured out when the field-expedient proctologists found him, never ever ever give up your WMD. Not ever.

Sorcerer of Death's Construction
Avatar
Lifetime Member
Online
  • Joined Sep 2002
  • Posts 43088
  • EE 0% (0)
USA NC, USA
NRAMilitary
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 2:26:42 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PanzerOfDoom:
Mutually assured destruction keeps the rational powers in check; unfortunately non-rational powers currently, or will soon, posses them.
View Quote


current warhead counts probably precludes MAD as legitimate.

Now its, "you will pay more than you can possibly take"

Kinda counter-vailing.

You disturb the status quo to forward your interests.

If that disturbance is too great, than you will lose more of your initial position than what your aggression delivers. Juice isn't worth the squeeze.

The key is to quietly forward your interests in such a manner that the change in status quo never reaches the nuclear threshold. and this isn't just nuclear, it applies conventionally as well.

See also Georgia, Ukraine, Spratleys.

Sorcerer of Death's Construction
Avatar
Lifetime Member
Online
  • Joined Sep 2002
  • Posts 43089
  • EE 0% (0)
USA NC, USA
NRAMilitary
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 2:27:00 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Tomislav:
As Qaddafi figured out when the field-expedient proctologists found him, never ever ever give up your WMD. Not ever.
View Quote


Syria promised!

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Jul 2006
  • Posts 839
  • EE 0% (0)
UKR UKR
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 2:33:38 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


Japan
S. Korea
Australia
Saudi Arabia
Germany
Poland
Czech Republic

Thats the short list who have the ability now to have a nuclear weapon within a year if they so choose and have the security reasons to do so.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By stevem1a:
Iraq learned this lesson the hard way, and North Korea is certain to be watching.

I suspect a lot of other countries are paying closer attention, too.


Japan
S. Korea
Australia
Saudi Arabia
Germany
Poland
Czech Republic

Thats the short list who have the ability now to have a nuclear weapon within a year if they so choose and have the security reasons to do so.


I'd add Taiwan to that list, maybe even at number 3, just behind Japan and ROK. Though China would probably lose their minds if it was even hinted Taiwan is developing nuclear weapons.

Member
Avatar
Platinum
Offline
  • Joined Mar 2002
  • Posts 31002
  • EE 100% (60)
USA USA
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 2:39:09 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


Syria promised!
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Tomislav:
As Qaddafi figured out when the field-expedient proctologists found him, never ever ever give up your WMD. Not ever.


Syria promised!



The dratted rebels are delaying Assad's fulfilling of said promise. But just as soon as the Damascus-Aleppo road is clear, well, by golly...

Sorcerer of Death's Construction
Avatar
Lifetime Member
Online
  • Joined Sep 2002
  • Posts 43091
  • EE 0% (0)
USA NC, USA
NRAMilitary
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 2:41:20 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Tomislav:



The dratted rebels are delaying Assad's fulfilling of said promise. But just as soon as the Damascus-Aleppo road is clear, well, by golly...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Tomislav:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Tomislav:
As Qaddafi figured out when the field-expedient proctologists found him, never ever ever give up your WMD. Not ever.


Syria promised!



The dratted rebels are delaying Assad's fulfilling of said promise. But just as soon as the Damascus-Aleppo road is clear, well, by golly...


of course, once the fighting is over and Assad has regained complete control, how are we going to enforce it?

Our leverage now is to support the rebels if he doesn't.
But he can't as long as there are rebels.
So whats are leverage outside the rebels?

Obama, he's soooooooooooooo smart.

Member?
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Jan 2013
  • Posts 6743
  • EE 100% (39)
USA TX, USA
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 2:46:11 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Island1:
He wasn't sworn in until 1997 and that was just as a State Senator.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Island1:
Originally Posted By evo7011:
per WiKi "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996"
He wasn't sworn in until 1997 and that was just as a State Senator.


I hear he was instrumental in the MG ban of 86.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Team Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined May 2001
  • Posts 6135
  • EE 100% (133)
USA NY, USA
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 4:27:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/7/2014 4:33:22 AM EST by garr]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By evo7011:

Do you have a source for this? I would love to read Obamas thesis someday, even though that will never happen.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By evo7011:
Originally Posted By Beach:
Originally Posted By BSWilson:
Wiki

On June 1, 1996 Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent the last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling.


Considering current events, was this a bad idea? Did they have a choice at the time?


DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO WAS THE ARCHITECT OF THIS PLAN? None other than Sen Barack H Obama and Sen Lugar...

Funny, one of Obama's first acts as President was to classify his masters thesis on Nuclear Disarmament? Curious...

He also had them destroy as part of the treaty nearly 700,000 TONS of small arms, ammunition and artillery pieces...leaving the Ukrainian .mil a ghost of its former self and preventing nearly ALL of that 7.62 x 39 goodness from ever making its ways to our shore as surplus...

Do you have a source for this? I would love to read Obamas thesis someday, even though that will never happen.


I don't have a link, but myself & a bunch of friends read both Zeros (not a thesis just a term paper for some political science class, I think) & Moochelles, they both read like badly written High School term papers, I mean really embarrassing. It showed just how far our educational system has taken the "Graded on the curve" system of pushing idiots ahead just because of their race-creed-sexual beliefs-etc....
Moochelles was particularly sickening.

Trouble Shooter
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2005
  • Posts 28874
  • EE 100% (6)
USA VA, USA
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 4:32:02 AM EST
Never trust any government to protect you from dangerous entities. This applies as much to nations on the international level as it does to Joe Citizen.

Peace through superior firepower.
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Mar 2003
  • Posts 3234
  • EE 100% (32)
USA WA, USA
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 5:09:53 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


Lets take Iran and Saudi Arabia both nuclear armed, shall we.

5 minute time of flight to hit eithers' capital.
So, things get hot, they start posturing.
Typical nuke, only top executives can order the launching.
No early warning.
Whoever launches first knocks out the C2 for the others retaliatory strike.
Better yet, if you have 4 or 5. Whoever launches first knocks out both the C2 AND their retaliatory capability.

Free rider bonus. Remember, existential threats here. US used nukes. What happened?
If Saudi Arabia launches first and knocks out the mullahs AND their nukes.
Oh boo hoo. Whole world gets weepie eyed? WE gonna stop buying oil?
Would Saudi Arabia be willing to give up Riyadh to avoid a tersely worded letter from the UN?
But who knows?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Rossi:
What does having nuclear weapons would do to them, or any country that does not have the means to detonate them on enemy's soil? Countries listed also have the means to deliver. Either by ship, plane or missile

Even if the country also had the launchers, what makes them think they would be able to use them? If they have the means, they have the ability

If they use them in their own soil, what are the outcomes? Who knows?

If they use them in enemy's soil, what are the outcomes? Who knows?

Do the US, Russia or any other think they can use a nuclear weapon (even a small tactical one) and things would go business as usual? Who knows?

Just curious. Who ain't





Lets take Iran and Saudi Arabia both nuclear armed, shall we.

5 minute time of flight to hit eithers' capital.
So, things get hot, they start posturing.
Typical nuke, only top executives can order the launching.
No early warning.
Whoever launches first knocks out the C2 for the others retaliatory strike.
Better yet, if you have 4 or 5. Whoever launches first knocks out both the C2 AND their retaliatory capability.

Free rider bonus. Remember, existential threats here. US used nukes. What happened?
If Saudi Arabia launches first and knocks out the mullahs AND their nukes.
Oh boo hoo. Whole world gets weepie eyed? WE gonna stop buying oil?
Would Saudi Arabia be willing to give up Riyadh to avoid a tersely worded letter from the UN?
But who knows?



The US only walked out Japan's bombing because no one really knew exactly what was the outcome of using the bombs. (by the way, I'm not saying we should not have used at that time).

However, in 1945 the global situation as completely different than today's.

Unless the guy ordering the use of such weapon is completely insane and wants to wipe out his/her own country and people no one will use one. The same applies on using them on the enemy. So, those things just sit there and I still do not believe they deter anything.

Only exception are terrorists who want to inflict the most damage to their targets. And considering how easy it is to get one and sneak one anywhere in the world we just need to wonder why none have been used yet.

So, I do not buy the need for nuclear weapons. In the end of the day it's the conventional weapons that will cut it.












Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Nov 2013
  • Posts 1575
  • EE 100% (21)
USA MI, USA
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 5:11:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/7/2014 5:11:40 AM EST by TacticalHeater]
Sounds really familiar to me....


"You don't need that capacity rifle, the police is here to protect you"

Sorcerer of Death's Construction
Avatar
Lifetime Member
Online
  • Joined Sep 2002
  • Posts 43100
  • EE 0% (0)
USA NC, USA
NRAMilitary
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 5:58:22 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Rossi:



The US only walked out Japan's bombing because no one really knew exactly what was the outcome of using the bombs. (by the way, I'm not saying we should not have used at that time).

However, in 1945 the global situation as completely different than today's.

Unless the guy ordering the use of such weapon is completely insane and wants to wipe out his/her own country and people no one will use one. The same applies on using them on the enemy. So, those things just sit there and I still do not believe they deter anything.

Only exception are terrorists who want to inflict the most damage to their targets. And considering how easy it is to get one and sneak one anywhere in the world we just need to wonder why none have been used yet.

So, I do not buy the need for nuclear weapons. In the end of the day it's the conventional weapons that will cut it.











View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Rossi:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Rossi:
What does having nuclear weapons would do to them, or any country that does not have the means to detonate them on enemy's soil? Countries listed also have the means to deliver. Either by ship, plane or missile

Even if the country also had the launchers, what makes them think they would be able to use them? If they have the means, they have the ability

If they use them in their own soil, what are the outcomes? Who knows?

If they use them in enemy's soil, what are the outcomes? Who knows?

Do the US, Russia or any other think they can use a nuclear weapon (even a small tactical one) and things would go business as usual? Who knows?

Just curious. Who ain't





Lets take Iran and Saudi Arabia both nuclear armed, shall we.

5 minute time of flight to hit eithers' capital.
So, things get hot, they start posturing.
Typical nuke, only top executives can order the launching.
No early warning.
Whoever launches first knocks out the C2 for the others retaliatory strike.
Better yet, if you have 4 or 5. Whoever launches first knocks out both the C2 AND their retaliatory capability.

Free rider bonus. Remember, existential threats here. US used nukes. What happened?
If Saudi Arabia launches first and knocks out the mullahs AND their nukes.
Oh boo hoo. Whole world gets weepie eyed? WE gonna stop buying oil?
Would Saudi Arabia be willing to give up Riyadh to avoid a tersely worded letter from the UN?
But who knows?



The US only walked out Japan's bombing because no one really knew exactly what was the outcome of using the bombs. (by the way, I'm not saying we should not have used at that time).

However, in 1945 the global situation as completely different than today's.

Unless the guy ordering the use of such weapon is completely insane and wants to wipe out his/her own country and people no one will use one. The same applies on using them on the enemy. So, those things just sit there and I still do not believe they deter anything.

Only exception are terrorists who want to inflict the most damage to their targets. And considering how easy it is to get one and sneak one anywhere in the world we just need to wonder why none have been used yet.

So, I do not buy the need for nuclear weapons. In the end of the day it's the conventional weapons that will cut it.













North Korea and Iran say you are wrong.
And their opinion matters more than yours or mine.

Peace through superior firepower.
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Mar 2003
  • Posts 3235
  • EE 100% (32)
USA WA, USA
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 8:10:26 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


North Korea and Iran say you are wrong.
And their opinion matters more than yours or mine.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Rossi:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Rossi:
What does having nuclear weapons would do to them, or any country that does not have the means to detonate them on enemy's soil? Countries listed also have the means to deliver. Either by ship, plane or missile

Even if the country also had the launchers, what makes them think they would be able to use them? If they have the means, they have the ability

If they use them in their own soil, what are the outcomes? Who knows?

If they use them in enemy's soil, what are the outcomes? Who knows?

Do the US, Russia or any other think they can use a nuclear weapon (even a small tactical one) and things would go business as usual? Who knows?

Just curious. Who ain't





Lets take Iran and Saudi Arabia both nuclear armed, shall we.

5 minute time of flight to hit eithers' capital.
So, things get hot, they start posturing.
Typical nuke, only top executives can order the launching.
No early warning.
Whoever launches first knocks out the C2 for the others retaliatory strike.
Better yet, if you have 4 or 5. Whoever launches first knocks out both the C2 AND their retaliatory capability.

Free rider bonus. Remember, existential threats here. US used nukes. What happened?
If Saudi Arabia launches first and knocks out the mullahs AND their nukes.
Oh boo hoo. Whole world gets weepie eyed? WE gonna stop buying oil?
Would Saudi Arabia be willing to give up Riyadh to avoid a tersely worded letter from the UN?
But who knows?



The US only walked out Japan's bombing because no one really knew exactly what was the outcome of using the bombs. (by the way, I'm not saying we should not have used at that time).

However, in 1945 the global situation as completely different than today's.

Unless the guy ordering the use of such weapon is completely insane and wants to wipe out his/her own country and people no one will use one. The same applies on using them on the enemy. So, those things just sit there and I still do not believe they deter anything.

Only exception are terrorists who want to inflict the most damage to their targets. And considering how easy it is to get one and sneak one anywhere in the world we just need to wonder why none have been used yet.

So, I do not buy the need for nuclear weapons. In the end of the day it's the conventional weapons that will cut it.


NK falls in the category of the insane. And if that lunatic decides to use it anywhere else than SK he will need a one-way-trip aiplane that will likely be shot down before going too far. So, will he use it on his own people?
And if he uses them in SK the US' (or anyone else's) will be bombing NK back with nuclear ordnance also? Something tells me it would not happen.

Iran does not fall much far from that.

And how do you see nuclear weapons making any difference on what's going on in Ukraine? Even their militaries are using sticks and old sunken boats against each other.

I am probably missing something...











North Korea and Iran say you are wrong.
And their opinion matters more than yours or mine.


Basic
Offline
  • Joined May 2002
  • Posts 6824
  • EE 0% (0)
USA NJ, USA
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 8:18:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/7/2014 8:18:58 AM EST by Katana16j]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:

Lets take Iran and Saudi Arabia both nuclear armed, shall we.

5 minute time of flight to hit eithers' capital.
So, things get hot, they start posturing.
Typical nuke, only top executives can order the launching.
No early warning.
Whoever launches first knocks out the C2 for the others retaliatory strike.
Better yet, if you have 4 or 5. Whoever launches first knocks out both the C2 AND their retaliatory capability.

Free rider bonus. Remember, existential threats here. US used nukes. What happened?
If Saudi Arabia launches first and knocks out the mullahs AND their nukes.
Oh boo hoo. Whole world gets weepie eyed? WE gonna stop buying oil?
Would Saudi Arabia be willing to give up Riyadh to avoid a tersely worded letter from the UN?
But who knows?
View Quote


Amazing, you can think strategically this far and yet you still believe that Infantry has a place in the world...

It's like watching a Dog that's been taught to play Mozart on the Piano but it's still barking along with the tune.

Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Feb 2005
  • Posts 1337
  • EE 0% (0)
USA NJ, USA
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 8:32:06 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By evo7011:

per WiKi "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996"
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By evo7011:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Beach:
Originally Posted By BSWilson:
Wiki

On June 1, 1996 Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent the last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling.


Considering current events, was this a bad idea? Did they have a choice at the time?


DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO WAS THE ARCHITECT OF THIS PLAN? None other than Sen Barack H Obama and Sen Lugar...

Funny, one of Obama's first acts as President was to classify his masters thesis on Nuclear Disarmament? Curious...


Not to put too fine a point on it but Obama wasn't a US Senator in 1996 ...

per WiKi "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996"


He wasnt sworn in until 1997.

Member
Avatar
Lifetime Member
Offline
  • Joined Jul 2012
  • Posts 3617
  • EE 100% (6)
USA TX, USA
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 8:34:43 AM EST
Originally Posted By BSWilson:
Wiki

On June 1, 1996 Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent the last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling.
View Quote


Considering current events, was this a bad idea? Did they have a choice at the time?
View Quote


Their choice appears to have been give them up or be a pariah both east and west. Unlikely they had the logistics to launch on day 1 of ownership, must less the $ to maintain them.

If they could have kept them and kept even a few operational, they'd not be where they are today. There's a reason we went to Afghanistan and not Pakistan.
This is Arfcom GD. The type of loving you want, you don't get. The type of loving you get, you don't want. -Booze
Veteran of the War on Women
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Aug 2009
  • Posts 6519
  • EE 0% (0)
USA CO, USA
Military
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 8:58:35 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mech2007:



"Will not comply!" also works.


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mech2007:
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
If you are the leader of a country with nukes an you are asked to give them up....your appropriate response is "No"



"Will not comply!" also works.



Unless you're South Africa and the riff raff is taking over


Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top