Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/6/2014 11:42:31 AM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 11:44:06 AM EDT
They had 1,900 of them, sure they had a choice.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 11:45:20 AM EDT
What about Chemical?
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 11:48:35 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 11:49:00 AM EDT
They didn't really have the infrastructure to maintain them

The USSR kind of just left them there
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 11:52:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2014 11:55:17 AM EDT 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...
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 11:52:55 AM EDT
The US paid them to give them up.
The cash was spent - or stolen - long ago.
It seems they chose pooorly.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 11:55:27 AM EDT
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 ...
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 11:55:47 AM EDT
BHO would do the same here to US if he got the chance. With same results in the end. Same philosophy about guns too.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 11:58:33 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 11:59:53 AM EDT
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...
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 12:00:56 PM EDT
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"
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 12:06:14 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 12:07:25 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 12:37:21 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 4:22:36 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 4:25:32 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 4:29:43 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 4:31:13 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 4:31:33 PM EDT
The assurances in 96 were given by the US (Clinton Admin), UK and China.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 4:34:39 PM EDT
It's generally a bad move to give up your whole ammo fort. Especially if your ammo fort happens to include 1900 nuclear devices.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 4:37:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2014 4:37:33 PM EDT 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?
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 9:34:35 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 9:37:57 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 10:04:23 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 10:41:36 PM EDT
SS-18 was produced in Ukraine /Ukrainian SSR/:

Link Posted: 3/6/2014 10:48:36 PM EDT


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


Link Posted: 3/6/2014 10:50:48 PM EDT
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.



Link Posted: 3/7/2014 2:08:40 AM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 2:47:29 AM EDT
If you are the leader of a country with nukes an you are asked to give them up....your appropriate response is "No"
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 2:55:59 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 2:56:47 AM EDT
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.


Link Posted: 3/7/2014 3:02:56 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 3:03:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2014 3:03:36 AM EDT by PanzerOfDoom]
Mutually assured destruction keeps the rational powers in check; unfortunately non-rational powers currently, or will soon, posses them.
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 3:04:04 AM EDT
As Qaddafi figured out when the field-expedient proctologists found him, never ever ever give up your WMD. Not ever.
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 3:26:42 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 3:27:00 AM EDT
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!
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 3:33:38 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 3:39:09 AM EDT
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...
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 3:41:20 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 3:46:11 AM EDT
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
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 5:27:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2014 5:33:22 AM EDT 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.
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 5:32:02 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 6:09:53 AM EDT
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.











Link Posted: 3/7/2014 6:11:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2014 6:11:40 AM EDT by TacticalHeater]
Sounds really familiar to me....


"You don't need that capacity rifle, the police is here to protect you"
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 6:58:22 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 9:10:26 AM EDT
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.

Link Posted: 3/7/2014 9:18:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2014 9:18:58 AM EDT 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.
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 9:32:06 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 9:34:43 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 9:58:35 AM EDT
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 Top