Nuclear weapons are the most deadly and destructive weapons ever built. Yet, nuclear policy decisions are limited to exclusive spaces that permit only the most privileged to have a seat at the table.
The United States spends more than $50 billion each year to maintain its nuclear arsenal in the name of "security." That spending does nothing to solve issues that threaten real human security every day, including racial injustice, economic insecurity, gun violence, police violence, the ongoing threat of pandemics, the global climate crisis, and so much more.
Why are we building more? Who are we building more for? I honestly believe that all the people in the world would be happy to begin eliminating nuclear weapons. I believe that all of the people in the world could live without war.
The people do not seem to be the problem. It is the government's that believe we need war not the people so why are we building nuclear weapons? Why must there be war if the majority of human beings do not want war?
I think we should reduce the arsenal maybe 70% and focus the saved monies on (a) better delivery systems and (b) space-based nuclear reactor development.
The military may well be the largest polluter on earth .........(a) Yeah, OK.
(b) What exactly do we need power in space for?
The military may well be the largest polluter on earth .........
The enemies seem to be the governments not the people.....
pollution is a concern if anything is moved to space however the same question came to my mind when I read space based nuclear reactor development.That's not an answer.
Why blow up a hundred cities when you can nuke tens of thousands of them? Life's better that way...We don't necessarily have to get rid of them all. But do we really need thousands of them? Is there any scenario where destroying 100 cities isn't enough, and the world would be a better place if only we had more nukes than that?
Many will be lost to anti missile defences which need numbers to saturate and overwhelm them. The more we have the more successful any reprisal we initiate will be.We don't necessarily have to get rid of them all. But do we really need thousands of them? Is there any scenario where destroying 100 cities isn't enough, and the world would be a better place if only we had more nukes than that?
OK then, how do you make the other nuclear powers, disarm? Or even down-size?
Ok, let's say a 50% loss rate. So 200 nukes will still let us destroy 100 cities. Yay?Many will be lost to anti missile defences which need numbers to saturate and overwhelm them. The more we have the more successful any reprisal we initiate will be.
On (b) I’m happy to go into more depth but first need to respond rhetorically. Do you believe there is value - scientific, economic or existential - in Earth orbit and beyond? Or, are you of the opinion that we should not go into space until we fix <tbd> problems with <tbd> certainty on Earth? If the former we can talk about the role nuclear power could play. If the latter, we’ll just agree to disagree and move on.(a) Yeah, OK.
(b) What exactly do we need power in space for?
Hence the need to invest in better delivery systems, rather than a very large pool of weapons.Many will be lost to anti missile defences which need numbers to saturate and overwhelm them. The more we have the more successful any reprisal we initiate will be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?