User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 11:44:06 AM EDT
[#1]
They had 1,900 of them, sure they had a choice.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 11:45:20 AM EDT
[#2]
What about Chemical?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 11:48:35 AM EDT
[#3]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 11:49:00 AM EDT
[#4]
They didn't really have the infrastructure to maintain them
The USSR kind of just left them there |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 11:52:25 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 11:52:55 AM EDT
[#6]
The US paid them to give them up.
The cash was spent - or stolen - long ago. It seems they chose pooorly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 11:55:27 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 11:55:47 AM EDT
[#8]
BHO would do the same here to US if he got the chance. With same results in the end. Same philosophy about guns too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 11:58:33 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 11:59:53 AM EDT
[#10]
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...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 12:00:56 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not to put too fine a point on it but Obama wasn't a US Senator in 1996 ... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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" |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 12:06:14 PM EDT
[#12]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 12:07:25 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: per WiKi "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996" |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 12:37:21 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They didn't really have the infrastructure to maintain them The USSR kind of just left them there As a big fuck you, maybe the NATO countries should have helped them maintain a couple dozen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 4:22:36 PM EDT
[#15]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 4:25:32 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 4:29:43 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 4:31:13 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not to put too fine a point on it but Obama wasn't a US Senator in 1996 ... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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 ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 4:31:33 PM EDT
[#19]
The assurances in 96 were given by the US (Clinton Admin), UK and China.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 4:34:39 PM EDT
[#20]
It's generally a bad move to give up your whole ammo fort. Especially if your ammo fort happens to include 1900 nuclear devices.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 4:37:02 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only one on that list that slightly worries me is Saudi Arabia. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 9:34:35 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 9:37:57 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 10:04:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 10:41:36 PM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 10:48:36 PM EDT
[#26]
Seems like someone could draw an analogy to the anti-gunners' behavior in the US without too much trouble. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2014 10:50:48 PM EDT
[#27]
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 2:08:40 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 2:47:29 AM EDT
[#29]
If you are the leader of a country with nukes an you are asked to give them up....your appropriate response is "No"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 2:55:59 AM EDT
[#30]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 2:56:47 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 3:02:56 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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.
Nuclear mine field across the border would make someone think before invading. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 3:03:11 AM EDT
[#33]
Mutually assured destruction keeps the rational powers in check; unfortunately non-rational powers currently, or will soon, posses them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 3:04:04 AM EDT
[#34]
As Qaddafi figured out when the field-expedient proctologists found him, never ever ever give up your WMD. Not ever.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 3:26:42 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mutually assured destruction keeps the rational powers in check; unfortunately non-rational powers currently, or will soon, posses them. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 3:27:00 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As Qaddafi figured out when the field-expedient proctologists found him, never ever ever give up your WMD. Not ever. Syria promised! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 3:33:38 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 3:39:09 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Syria promised! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 3:41:20 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 3:46:11 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He wasn't sworn in until 1997 and that was just as a State Senator. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
per WiKi "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996" I hear he was instrumental in the MG ban of 86. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 5:27:12 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have a source for this? I would love to read Obamas thesis someday, even though that will never happen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 5:32:02 AM EDT
[#42]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 6:09:53 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 6:11:03 AM EDT
[#44]
Sounds really familiar to me....
"You don't need that capacity rifle, the police is here to protect you" |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 6:58:22 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 9:10:26 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
North Korea and Iran say you are wrong. And their opinion matters more than yours or mine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 9:18:09 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 9:32:06 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
per WiKi "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 9:34:43 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
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? 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 9:58:35 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Will not comply!" also works. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
