Nuclear weapons are the most deadly and destructive weapons ever built...we spend more than $50 billion each year to maintain the nuclear arsenal.....

[Razoo]

So you favor unilaterally eliminating our nuclear deterrent?

bottom line = no winner aka let's stop fooling ourselves

 

[Questerr]

bottom line = no winner aka let's stop fooling ourselves

There absolutely would be a winner if a nuclear attack occurred with no retaliatory strike.

 

[Michael Cole]

300 is adequate against the many thousands of Russia and the US? 300 would be fine if it hit the targets aimed at. I agree China probably has more, but that our intel know how much more. Not, though, anywhere near the close to 6,000 and over 6,000 the US and Russia are said to have.

I agree with @Gatsby here. Maybe 500 would be sufficient to deter all other nuclear powers. We don't need thousands.

 

[joko104]

The potentially most deadly WMD is biological, not nuclear.

Many countries better get nuclear weapons fast: Ukraine, Taiwan, N. Korea, Japan, Australian and New Zealand as examples. Any country that relies on the USA, NATO or SEATO are fools.

If anything has been proven about alliances with the USA it is not to trust the USA. We so betray allies that we gave the Taliban $85 BILLION in military equipment and the names of our Afghan allies so the Taliban can go kill our Afghanistan allies who fled to the mountains with their elected Vice President to try to save their country and democracy - for which Biden made a military alliance with the Taliban to kill our former Afghan allies.

 

[Razoo]

Sounds like a great reason to maintain a deterrent so other nations won't even contemplate carrying out such an attack.

I'm not convinced another nation would attack with nuclear weapons ........ all know the devastation that would occur.

If nuke weapons are declared obsolete because no one wants to be responsible for wiping out the human race and a few animal kingdoms then we could proceed to shut down nuke power plants.

 

[Questerr]

I'm not convinced another nation would attack with nuclear weapons ........ all know the devastation that would occur.

If nuke weapons are declared obsolete because no one wants to be responsible for wiping out the human race and a few animal kingdoms then we could proceed to shut down nuke power plants.

The devastation would occur ON US. Why would they not do that?

Destroying the top 50 US cities would absolutely destroy America. It would not in any way wipe out the human race.

 

[Razoo]

The links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons -

Nuclear weapons and nuclear power share several common features and there is a danger that having more nuclear power stations in the world could mean more nuclear weapons. CND will continue to campaign to stop new nuclear power stations from being built, as well as for an end to nuclear...

cnduk.org

The links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons​

Introduction

Nuclear weapons and nuclear power share several common features. The long list of links includes their histories, similar technologies, skills, health and safety aspects, regulatory issues and radiological research and development.

For example, the process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations is also used to make nuclear weapons. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and is still used by some countries to make nuclear weapons.

There is a danger that more nuclear power stations in the world could mean more nuclear weapons. Because countries like the UK are promoting the expansion of nuclear power, other countries are beginning to plan for their own nuclear power programmes too. But there is always the danger that countries acquiring nuclear power technology may subvert its use to develop a nuclear weapons programme.

After all, the UK’s first nuclear power stations were built primarily to provide fissile material for nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Nuclear materials may also get into the wrong hands and be used to make a crude nuclear device or a so-called ‘dirty bomb’.

The facts

Some radioactive materials (such as plutonium-239 and uranium-235) spontaneously fission in the right configuration. That is, their nuclei split apart giving off very large amounts of energy. Inside a warhead, trillions of such fissions occur inside a small space within a fraction of a second, resulting in a massive explosion.

Inside a nuclear reactor, the fissions are slower and more spread out, and the resulting heat is used to boil water, to make steam, to turn turbines which generate electricity.

However, the prime use of plutonium-239 and uranium-235, and the reason they were produced in the first place, is to make nuclear weapons.

Nuclear reactors are initially fuelled by uranium (usually in the form of metal-clad rods). Uranium is a naturally-occurring element like silver or iron and is mined from the earth. Plutonium is an artificial element created by the process of neutron activation in a reactor.

 

[Questerr]

The links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons -

Nuclear weapons and nuclear power share several common features and there is a danger that having more nuclear power stations in the world could mean more nuclear weapons. CND will continue to campaign to stop new nuclear power stations from being built, as well as for an end to nuclear...

cnduk.org

Getting rid of nuclear power means surrendering our species to eventual extinction on Earth. Nuclear power is necessary for long range manned space travel and colonization.

 

[Razoo]

The devastation would occur ON US. Why would they not do that?

Destroying the top 50 US cities would absolutely destroy America. It would not in any way wipe out the human race.

nonsense ....... as soon as the USA noticed America being attacked by nukes the USA would launch anti nuke missiles and maybe an ICBM or two.

Who knows how far radioactive nuke dust and smoke can drift?

I say other nuke powers might decide as a matter of self defense to set off a few nuke missiles at who knows.

 

[Questerr]

nonsense ....... as soon as the USA noticed America being attacked by nukes the USA would launch anti nuke missiles and maybe an ICBM or two.

Who knows how far radioactive nuke dust and smoke can drift?

But you favor getting rid of the US's nukes. So no retaliation would occur. And anti-missile systems at best have a success rate of about 1 in 3 and that is in testing where the defenders know exactly when and where the missile will be launched from. In a real world attack, they would be lucky to intercept one in ten missiles fired at them.

And who knows how far the radioactive dust would drift? Scientists do. There's lots of mapping models based on weather patterns.

You realize more than 500 atmospheric nuclear detonations have already occurred right? Has humanity been wiped out by them? What makes you think 50 more would destroy humanity?

 

[Razoo]

But you favor getting rid of the US's nukes. So no retaliation would occur. And anti-missile systems at best have a success rate of about 1 in 3 and that is in testing where the defenders know exactly when and where the missile will be launched from. In a real world attack, they would be lucky to intercept one in ten missiles fired at them.

And who knows how far the radioactive dust would drift? Scientists do. There's lots of mapping models based on weather patterns.

You realize more than 500 atmospheric nuclear detonations have already occurred right? Has humanity been wiped out by them? What makes you think 50 more would destroy humanity?

pure speculation .........

 

[Questerr]

pure speculation .........

No, its actually based on nearly 20 years of research on the topic.

 

[Mach]

We've thrown trillions at the problems you stated already and nothing has changed.

Is there some sort of " magical special money" that can do all this?

Nonsense.
NRA/Republicans block any/all gun legislation, even work against firearm related research(!)
Republicans oppose most any climate/environmental advocacy policies and actively undo policies when elected (see Trump)
Economic insecurity - #1 cost is healthcare, Republicans oppose most of the popular healthcare policies put forward by candidates
Republicans and Russia are the biggest pushers of anti-vaxx/anti-mask/anti-mandate propaganda

Political violence - not very costly, not really relevant. Jan6th showed us that Republicans are OK with violence/rioting as long as its "their side"

You're living in a fantasy world where Republicans aren't the problem.

 

[Craig234]

OK then, how do you make the other nuclear powers, disarm? Or even down-size?

They would happily do so for the security of not having nuclear war. The issue is having international monitoring to ensure no one gets them again, and the need to forcefully respond if any country tried. It's an issue many in the US want to ignore the danger of, despite that we've come close to a nuclear war repeatedly.

 

[HangLow]

The potentially most deadly WMD is biological, not nuclear.
Many countries better get nuclear weapons fast: Ukraine, Taiwan, N. Korea, Japan, Australian and New Zealand as examples. Any country that relies on the USA, NATO or SEATO are fools.
If anything has been proven about alliances with the USA it is not to trust the USA. We so betray allies that we gave the Taliban $85 BILLION in military equipment and the names of our Afghan allies so the Taliban can go kill our Afghanistan allies who fled to the mountains with their elected Vice President to try to save their country and democracy - for which Biden made a military alliance with the Taliban to kill our former Afghan allies.

 

[Questerr]

The potentially most deadly WMD is biological, not nuclear.

Many countries better get nuclear weapons fast: Ukraine, Taiwan, N. Korea, Japan, Australian and New Zealand as examples. Any country that relies on the USA, NATO or SEATO are fools.

If anything has been proven about alliances with the USA it is not to trust the USA. We so betray allies that we gave the Taliban $85 BILLION in military equipment and the names of our Afghan allies so the Taliban can go kill our Afghanistan allies who fled to the mountains with their elected Vice President to try to save their country and democracy - for which Biden made a military alliance with the Taliban to kill our former Afghan allies.

What utter bullshit. The Afghan military were the ones who gave that equipment to the Taliban when they surrendered.

 

[joko104]

What utter bullshit. The Afghan military were the ones who gave that equipment to the Taliban when they surrendered.

DUSHANBE, Sept 8 (Reuters) - Panjshiri leader Ahmad Shah Massoud and former Afghan Vice President Amrullah Saleh have not fled Afghanistan and their resistance forces are still fighting the Taliban, the ousted Afghan government's ambassador to Tajikistan said on Wednesday.

Zahir Aghbar, envoy to Dushanbe under the government of ousted Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, told a news conference in Tajikistan's capital that he was in regular contact with Saleh and that the resistance leaders were out of general communication for security reasons.

"Ahmad Massoud and Amrullah Saleh have not fled to Tajikistan. The news that Ahmad Massoud has left Panjshir is not true; he is inside Afghanistan," Aghbar said.

Resistance leaders Massoud, Saleh still in Afghanistan, diplomat says

Panjshiri leader Ahmad Shah Massoud and former Afghan Vice President Amrullah Saleh have not fled Afghanistan and their resistance forces are still fighting the Taliban, the ousted Afghan government's ambassador to Tajikistan said on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

I'm confident Saigon-moment Biden and his Taliban alliance have killed the last of our Afghanistan allies by now, though I read there are still about 100 Americans they haven't been able to hunt down yet. Everyone should have known what Biden would do because of what he did regarding withdrawing from Vietnam, declaring he didn't care if even one of our Vietnamese allies escaped.

 

[Glitch]

We build more to replace those that have reached their end of life... Weapons of any kind have a lifespan... They become unsafe beyond their lifespan... I hate living in a world with nuclear weapons but NOT having nuclear weapons while other countries have them makes our country less safe.

We also build more because there are more countries with nuclear weapons. Back in 1989 it was just the US, the USSR, France, China, and Israel with nuclear weapons. Now you also have India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran.

 

[Glitch]

I'm not convinced another nation would attack with nuclear weapons ........ all know the devastation that would occur.

If nuke weapons are declared obsolete because no one wants to be responsible for wiping out the human race and a few animal kingdoms then we could proceed to shut down nuke power plants.

Nuclear weapons don't have to be used to wipe out the human species, that is why we created tactical nukes. Additionally, nuclear weapons have other uses, such as asteroid mitigation.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Nonsense.
NRA/Republicans block any/all gun legislation, even work against firearm related research(!)
Republicans oppose most any climate/environmental advocacy policies and actively undo policies when elected (see Trump)
Economic insecurity - #1 cost is healthcare, Republicans oppose most of the popular healthcare policies put forward by candidates
Republicans and Russia are the biggest pushers of anti-vaxx/anti-mask/anti-mandate propaganda

Political violence - not very costly, not really relevant. Jan6th showed us that Republicans are OK with violence/rioting as long as its "their side"

You're living in a fantasy world where Republicans aren't the problem.

It's funny that Democrats never seem to do anything about your complaints here.

 

[Questerr]

DUSHANBE, Sept 8 (Reuters) - Panjshiri leader Ahmad Shah Massoud and former Afghan Vice President Amrullah Saleh have not fled Afghanistan and their resistance forces are still fighting the Taliban, the ousted Afghan government's ambassador to Tajikistan said on Wednesday.

Zahir Aghbar, envoy to Dushanbe under the government of ousted Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, told a news conference in Tajikistan's capital that he was in regular contact with Saleh and that the resistance leaders were out of general communication for security reasons.

"Ahmad Massoud and Amrullah Saleh have not fled to Tajikistan. The news that Ahmad Massoud has left Panjshir is not true; he is inside Afghanistan," Aghbar said.

Resistance leaders Massoud, Saleh still in Afghanistan, diplomat says

Panjshiri leader Ahmad Shah Massoud and former Afghan Vice President Amrullah Saleh have not fled Afghanistan and their resistance forces are still fighting the Taliban, the ousted Afghan government's ambassador to Tajikistan said on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

I'm confident Saigon-moment Biden and his Taliban alliance have killed the last of our Afghanistan allies by now, though I read there are still about 100 Americans they haven't been able to hunt down yet. Everyone should have known what Biden would do because of what he did regarding withdrawing from Vietnam, declaring he didn't care if even one of our Vietnamese allies escaped.

Was your post somehow supposed to counter what I said?

 

[BirdinHand]

Perhaps they never should have been invented. But they were. So here we are.

Personally, I like the idea of having more and better nuclear weapons than anyone else. Because it keeps the world in check.

If the threat of the US military and her might wasn’t hanging out there…I’d hate to think what bad actors in the rest of the world that have no respect at all for human life *might* do.

We have watched horrible human beings enact genocide on people. We have watched them starve their populations. We have watched them subjugate other people (not saying the US is innocent)

But, a part of me likes to believe that the threat of our military…including our nuclear Arsenal…deters even worse from happening.

Then again, I grew up in the Cold War. So, the mentality was different then today (not sure if it is better or worse). I don’t trust even many of our “Allies” to keep the US safe, I trust our military alone to do that.

There’s something, at least to me, about the threat of mutual destruction that tends to keep the bad guys finger off the trigger/button.

 

[Luckyone]

OK then, how do you make the other nuclear powers, disarm? Or even down-size?

Explain how your comment has any value when this is the case:

THE UNITED STATES SPENDS MORE ON DEFENSE THAN THE NEXT 11 COUNTRIES COMBINED​

Defense spending by the United States increased by $44 billion from 2019 to 2020, according to recently released figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). That increase outstripped growth in spending from other countries, and as a result, the United States now spends more on defense than the next 11 countries combined (up from outspending the next 10 countries combined in 2019).

 

[Luckyone]

Perhaps they never should have been invented. But they were. So here we are.

Personally, I like the idea of having more and better nuclear weapons than anyone else. Because it keeps the world in check.

If the threat of the US military and her might wasn’t hanging out there…I’d hate to think what bad actors in the rest of the world that have no respect at all for human life *might* do.

We have watched horrible human beings enact genocide on people. We have watched them starve their populations. We have watched them subjugate other people (not saying the US is innocent)

But, a part of me likes to believe that the threat of our military…including our nuclear Arsenal…deters even worse from happening.

Then again, I grew up in the Cold War. So, the mentality was different then today (not sure if it is better or worse). I don’t trust even many of our “Allies” to keep the US safe, I trust our military alone to do that.

There’s something, at least to me, about the threat of mutual destruction that tends to keep the bad guys finger off the trigger/button.

Ever hear that overdoing things to the point of it being mostly waste is stupid?

See post #73 for explanation of what I mean.

 

[Mach]

It's funny that Democrats never seem to do anything about your complaints here.

Don't act like you don't know that the slim majority in the Senate isn't enough to pass non-reconciliation reform. To pass most legislation they require significant Republican support, and Republicans generally oppose any/all Democratic majority legislative efforts in order to "demonstrate" that Democrats can't get anything done.
Republicans DEFINITELY oppose those things, so it's a non-starter.
Again, Republicans are the problem you seem to be trying to identify.