Blix: US must halt own nuke program

[Kroforit]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=5980&sectionid=3510101


Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:42:40
http://www.presstv.ir/photo/20070414/hashemi20070414094219234.jpg The head of the UN Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, Hans Blix, has said that the US should stop proliferating nuclear weapons.

At a ceremony in Madrid for the release of his book titled "Weapons of Terror" Blix said that if the US genuinely wants to prevent the proliferation of other nation's nuclear programs, it should present itself as a role model and "completely" halt the development of its nuclear arms.

Nuclear nations should try to meet their defensive military needs through conventional weapons like the rest of the world, Blix suggested, adding that they should also participate in nuclear disarmament measures and secure a prohibition on atomic weapons.

Blix also described as "demeaning" the pre-conditions set on Iran for the resumption of nuclear talks with the Islamic Republic.

"Suspension of uranium enrichment as a pre-condition goes against Tehran's credibility," said Blix, adding, however, that it would be a welcomed move if Iran were to temporarily suspend its enrichment activity as a gesture of good faith.

He likened the UN Security Council members to fathers who smoke but who prohibit their children from smoking.

The chief of the UN Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission also said that before the creation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968, five countries had atomic bombs but that nine nations have now developed nuclear arsenals.

According to Blix, non-nuclear nations feel that the nuclear countries have not pursued disarmament in the post-NPT era but have tried to prevent other nations from developing nuclear technology.

"This amounts to a big defeat to the NPT," Blix said.

There are currently 27,000 warheads in the world, 12,000 of which are in the US and European countries.

Blix called on the US and Russia to resume talks on a new treaty within the framework of an additional NPT protocol, which would reduce strategic weapons.

The US has not yet signed the protocol.

[helomech]

"Hans,don't you know how fcuking busy I am?"

I'm sure the US is going to halt our Nuke program..NOT

[Exer]

Doesnt he have better things to do? like stop irans attempt first????

[Huhtis]

"Oh no Hans Brix!"
Why not US will stop it´s own nuclear program when Russia, China, NK, Iran and all others will stop theirs.

[Exer]

"Oh no Hans Brix!"
Why not US will stop it´s own nuclear program when Russia, China, NK, Iran and all others will stop theirs.

NK did stop theirs...

[-=P=-]

Its not about who do it first. The point is that the US don't want to give up nukes at all.

[sferrin]

NK did stop theirs...



Only after they discovered "huh, I guess this is harder than it looks." :roll:

[sferrin]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=5980&sectionid=3510101


Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:42:40
http://www.presstv.ir/photo/20070414/hashemi20070414094219234.jpg The head of the UN Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, Hans Blix, has said that the US should stop proliferating nuclear weapons.

At a ceremony in Madrid for the release of his book titled "Weapons of Terror" Blix said that if the US genuinely wants to prevent the proliferation of other nation's nuclear programs, it should present itself as a role model and "completely" halt the development of its nuclear arms.

Nuclear nations should try to meet their defensive military needs through conventional weapons like the rest of the world, Blix suggested, adding that they should also participate in nuclear disarmament measures and secure a prohibition on atomic weapons.

Blix also described as "demeaning" the pre-conditions set on Iran for the resumption of nuclear talks with the Islamic Republic.

"Suspension of uranium enrichment as a pre-condition goes against Tehran's credibility," said Blix, adding, however, that it would be a welcomed move if Iran were to temporarily suspend its enrichment activity as a gesture of good faith.

He likened the UN Security Council members to fathers who smoke but who prohibit their children from smoking.

The chief of the UN Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission also said that before the creation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968, five countries had atomic bombs but that nine nations have now developed nuclear arsenals.

According to Blix, non-nuclear nations feel that the nuclear countries have not pursued disarmament in the post-NPT era but have tried to prevent other nations from developing nuclear technology.

"This amounts to a big defeat to the NPT," Blix said.

There are currently 27,000 warheads in the world, 12,000 of which are in the US and European countries.

Blix called on the US and Russia to resume talks on a new treaty within the framework of an additional NPT protocol, which would reduce strategic weapons.

The US has not yet signed the protocol.




Funny he doesn't mention where the other 15,000 nukes are. Guess we know where he get's his "other" paycheck.

[saBBBat]

Bed Bath and Beyond! **** yea....

[Calanen]

NK did stop theirs...

Until the next time they start it again because they want something else from the international community. They stopped it for Clinton as well, but apparently had their fingers crossed when they made that agreement.

[Crystal_sword]

I personally think, from here, we cant say Iran wants bombs.

But i do think, if they want a Nuclear Reactor, we should just give them one, let them pay for it, and jsut give it them, and keep it secure with UN/NATO troops.

Its not just nukes though is it.

Alot of Weapon-bans and agreements from countries are signed, but its the same ones that dont sign, i.e. USA, China etc.

[McNasty]

Funny he doesn't mention where the other 15,000 nukes are. Guess we know where he get's his "other" paycheck.
It's not like people don't know that the Russians have a ****load of nukes.

[MichaelF]

Hans, being a fairly educated person, ought to know that Nukes stopped WWIII.

Both the US and USSR figured out early on that even the nominal "winner" of WWIII would be so jacked up that it wasn't worth the bother.

In a world without nuclear weapons, it again becomes a viable strategy to assemble vast armies and try to KO your neighbours.

The Atomic Age essentially obsoleted the "War to The Knife" (two or more, approximately equal, enemies go at it until one is conquered/exterminated) concept. Wars are fought now, primarily, between Nations/Alliances of vastly differing capability (Coalition vs Iraq, or US vs North Vietnam).

Ex: A conventional war fought, in Central Europe, between NATO and the WARPAC, would have been -at least- as devastating to Europe as a limited Nuclear exchange.

Why? Because it would have gone on much, much longer. The Major combatants (US and the USSR) would have had intact Homelands (more food, ammo and troops) and could fight it out in the European sandbox. A conflict like that could have continued for a decade. In the 1600's, a similar (for the day) conflict was fought in Germany (30yrs War). It depopulated most of North-Central Germany. That was with muskets and pikes, not AK-74s and M1 tanks.

Nukes, as scary as they are, have stopped most high-intensity conventional wars.

[sferrin]

It's not like people don't know that the Russians have a ****load of nukes.

It's not like people don't know the US has them either but I notice they're the only ones he singled out.

[name already taken]

Hans, being a fairly educated person, ought to know that Nukes stopped WWIII.

Both the US and USSR figured out early on that even the nominal "winner" of WWIII would be so jacked up that it wasn't worth the bother.

In a world without nuclear weapons, it again becomes a viable strategy to assemble vast armies and try to KO your neighbours.

The Atomic Age essentially obsoleted the "War to The Knife" (two or more, approximately equal, enemies go at it until one is conquered/exterminated) concept. Wars are fought now, primarily, between Nations/Alliances of vastly differing capability (Coalition vs Iraq, or US vs North Vietnam).

Ex: A conventional war fought, in Central Europe, between NATO and the WARPAC, would have been -at least- as devastating to Europe as a limited Nuclear exchange.

Why? Because it would have gone on much, much longer. The Major combatants (US and the USSR) would have had intact Homelands (more food, ammo and troops) and could fight it out in the European sandbox. A conflict like that could have continued for a decade. In the 1600's, a similar (for the day) conflict was fought in Germany (30yrs War). It depopulated most of North-Central Germany. That was with muskets and pikes, not AK-74s and M1 tanks.

Nukes, as scary as they are, have stopped most high-intensity conventional wars.
Hans Blix's point is that Nuclear Age could go wrong too.

Nothing is fool proof.

[sferrin]

Hans, being a fairly educated person, ought to know that Nukes stopped WWIII.

Both the US and USSR figured out early on that even the nominal "winner" of WWIII would be so jacked up that it wasn't worth the bother.

In a world without nuclear weapons, it again becomes a viable strategy to assemble vast armies and try to KO your neighbours.

The Atomic Age essentially obsoleted the "War to The Knife" (two or more, approximately equal, enemies go at it until one is conquered/exterminated) concept. Wars are fought now, primarily, between Nations/Alliances of vastly differing capability (Coalition vs Iraq, or US vs North Vietnam).

Ex: A conventional war fought, in Central Europe, between NATO and the WARPAC, would have been -at least- as devastating to Europe as a limited Nuclear exchange.

Why? Because it would have gone on much, much longer. The Major combatants (US and the USSR) would have had intact Homelands (more food, ammo and troops) and could fight it out in the European sandbox. A conflict like that could have continued for a decade. In the 1600's, a similar (for the day) conflict was fought in Germany (30yrs War). It depopulated most of North-Central Germany. That was with muskets and pikes, not AK-74s and M1 tanks.

Nukes, as scary as they are, have stopped most high-intensity conventional wars.


True. As crazy as it might sounds nukes might be the best thing that's ever happend as far as peace goes. True there are still conflicts but nothing on the scale of WWI or II. It's nukes in the hands of nutcases that are a concern. Would anybody care if Switzerland got nukes? Doubt it. Australia? Doubt it.

[name already taken]

It's not like people don't know the US has them either but I notice they're the only ones he singled out.
Is Russia currently developing new classes of nukes ? I haven't heard of.

Hans Blix's main point is about avoiding a new arms race.

The rest of his speech falls in the "secondary point/wishfull thinking" category in my opinion.

[MichaelF]

Hans Blix's point is that Nuclear Age could go wrong too.

Nothing is fool proof.

Correct.

Flip a coin, it's rough either way.

[Midav]

Is Russia currently developing new classes of nukes ? I haven't heard of.

Hans Blix's main point is about avoiding a new arms race.

The rest of his speech falls in the "secondary point/wishfull thinking" category in my opinion.

Russian Nukes Redux

Looking to recapture lost glory, Moscow is building a new nuclear warhead designed to evade U.S. defenses

By Owen Matthews
Newsweek International
Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Is energy the nuclear weapon of the 21st century? In recent months, Russia has shown that control of gas supplies to its neighbors can be a potent political tool. But when Vladimir Putin was asked exactly that question last week, he disagreed. "We still have plenty of nuclear rockets too," boasted Putin. "We recently carried out tests on new ballistic-weapon systems, weapons which no other country in the world has." The new Russian systems, he said, "don't care if there is a missile-defense system or not." In other words, for Putin, nukes are the nukes of the 21st century.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179135/site/newsweek/from/ET/

[name already taken]

Russian Nukes Redux

Looking to recapture lost glory, Moscow is building a new nuclear warhead designed to evade U.S. defenses

By Owen Matthews
Newsweek International
Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Is energy the nuclear weapon of the 21st century? In recent months, Russia has shown that control of gas supplies to its neighbors can be a potent political tool. But when Vladimir Putin was asked exactly that question last week, he disagreed. "We still have plenty of nuclear rockets too," boasted Putin. "We recently carried out tests on new ballistic-weapon systems, weapons which no other country in the world has." The new Russian systems, he said, "don't care if there is a missile-defense system or not." In other words, for Putin, nukes are the nukes of the 21st century.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179135/site/newsweek/from/ET/
See ? Nuclear arms race again....

That's what Hans Blix was talking about.

[name already taken]

Repressing proliferation while a nuclear arms race is going on might become very complicated.

[Midav]

See ? Nuclear arms race again....

That's what he's talking about.

I was talking about this:
Is Russia currently developing new classes of nukes ? I haven't heard of. :D

[name already taken]

I was talking about this: :D
Sorry! Correcting my post.

[name already taken]

Russian Nukes Redux

Looking to recapture lost glory, Moscow is building a new nuclear warhead designed to evade U.S. defenses

By Owen Matthews
Newsweek International
Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Is energy the nuclear weapon of the 21st century? In recent months, Russia has shown that control of gas supplies to its neighbors can be a potent political tool. But when Vladimir Putin was asked exactly that question last week, he disagreed. "We still have plenty of nuclear rockets too," boasted Putin. "We recently carried out tests on new ballistic-weapon systems, weapons which no other country in the world has." The new Russian systems, he said, "don't care if there is a missile-defense system or not." In other words, for Putin, nukes are the nukes of the 21st century.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179135/site/newsweek/from/ET/
We'll have to play the "Who started it first" game.

But this will give loose to the Global Warming guys.

[TheBelgian]

Bottom line is, you cant disinvent nukes. You either join the race, and get nukes too, or you get left behind at the mercy of the powers that do have nukes.

[name already taken]

Bottom line is, you cant disinvent nukes. You either join the race, and get nukes too, or you get left behind at the mercy of the powers that do have nukes.
I absolutely agree with this.

[Midav]

It's a Pandora's Box. Nukes, sadly, are here to stay and am sure Hans Blix already knows that.

He should focus on what he can do, which is to help stop the proliferation of these weapons through political or other means. The more countries that have nukes, the more likely one will eventually be used and it doesn't necessarily have to be via missile or bomb... could be handed to a small group of nutcases that would detonate it inside a city.

[MichaelF]

could be handed to a small group of nutcases that would detonate it inside a city.

Which is about 1/2 as useful as it seems.

The physics package (the Boom thing) can be traced back to the individual reactor that the fissile material was processed in. Quickly.


Which means a Pakistani nuke that ends up glazing Baltimore will lead to a reprisal against Karachi, inside 24hrs.

Proxy nukes are not a viable alternative.

[Midav]

Which is about 1/2 as useful as it seems.

The physics package (the Boom thing) can be traced back to the individual reactor that the fissile material was processed in. Quickly.


Which means a Pakistani nuke that ends up glazing Baltimore will lead to a reprisal against Karachi, inside 24hrs.

True. Yet the damage will still have been dealt. Musharraf won't be around forever and Pakistan has more than its fair share of nuts...

[MichaelF]

True. Yet the damage will still have been dealt. Musharraf won't be around forever and Pakistan has more than its fair share of nuts...

Obviously, nutcases are a wildcard.

However, no Nation (or it's leaders) are going to trade Baltimore (or DC) for ALL their cities. The weapon has to knock out the enemy, or you get vaporized in response. Even AQ won't gamble on their AO getting glazed just so they can give us a bloody nose. They want to win. A small arsenal is useless, save for deterrence. Which means, if you actually use your nukes against another nuclear power, you lose.

It's why the Soviet mini-nukes were never actually fielded. If they deployed them to their agents outside the USSR, they ran the risk of being caught, tipping off NATO that the Sovs were on the warpath. Instant cassus belli, whether or not the USSR was -actually- prepared for conflict.

Ergo, they were useless. They couldnt be deployed prior to hostilities, and were ineffective after the ballon went up.

The only realistic scenario is Party A having a device manufactured by (uninvolved) Party B and using it on Party C. Essentially, a frame job.

Awfully unlikely though.

[usm2b]

I absolutely agree with this.

Damnit... i was going to shoot you down because I read it as you "don't" agree with it. But sadly this is the truth. Which is why, what Blix says make sense. Whether its going to happen or not, I guess doesn't really matter, because it won't, but the US can't realistically ask a country that is a potential enemy to not develop nukes when the US probably has more than the rest of the world combined.

[Midav]

Obviously, nutcases are a wildcard.

However, no Nation (or it's leaders) are going to trade Baltimore (or DC) for ALL their cities.

It's why the Soviet mini-nukes were never actually fielded. If they deployed them to their agents outside the USSR, they ran the risk of being caught, tipping off NATO that the Sovs were on the warpath. Instant cassus belli, whether or not the USSR was -actually- prepared for conflict.

Ergo, they were useless. They couldnt be deployed prior to hostilities, and were ineffective after the ballon went up.

Is it highly unlikely? Sure. But I would never say never.

Soviet leaders also didn't have a belief that once they died fighting the bad guys they would be rewarded with 72 virgins heh

There are many crazy people out there and the more nukes are spread, the more likely one will get into the hands of someone that just doesn't care.

[name already taken]

Which is about 1/2 as useful as it seems.

The physics package (the Boom thing) can be traced back to the individual reactor that the fissile material was processed in. Quickly.


Which means a Pakistani nuke that ends up glazing Baltimore will lead to a reprisal against Karachi, inside 24hrs.

Proxy nukes are not a viable alternative.
Yes but try to explain this to terrorists who think nukes are magical things we don't understand as well as they ?

And what about those waiting for their 72 virgins ?

They might answer what you say is not written in the Kuran.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

NK did stop theirs...

Nope...



U.S. giving North Korea more time on nukes
POSTED: 5:54 p.m. EDT, April 14, 2007
Adjust font size:
BEIJING, China (AP) -- The United States is willing to give North Korea a few more days to meet its commitments after Pyongyang appeared to miss a deadline Saturday to shutter a nuclear reactor, a senior U.S. official said.
Under a February 13 multilateral deal, Pyongyang agreed to shut down its Soviet-era Yongbyon plant within 60 days but it seems it has not made good on that pledge because of millions of dollars frozen in North Korean accounts at a Macau bank.
North Korea has insisted the money be freed before it will comply with the agreement but the United States has said the funds have been unblocked and should no longer be an issue.
"Our patience is not infinite ... but we feel that given that the kind of unexpected complexities that did arise in connection with some of the banking issues that it's probably prudent to give this thing a few more days," a senior U.S. official who asked not to be identified told reporters.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/04/14/north.korea.disarmament.reut/index.html



Why is anybody still listening to the man who allowed the entire Iraqi situation to blow up? He was incompetent at best, corrupt at worst. He has either failed to learn from his mistakes, or he thinks we're fools. To listen to him, a lunatic with gun is the same as a cop with a gun.

[sferrin]

Is Russia currently developing new classes of nukes ? I haven't heard of.

Hans Blix's main point is about avoiding a new arms race.

The rest of his speech falls in the "secondary point/wishfull thinking" category in my opinion.


Well where are they getting their warheads for the new Topols, Bulavas, and Kh-101s? It's well known that the US hasn't built a new nuke since the early 90's. Not so for the Russians.

[sferrin]

It's a Pandora's Box. Nukes, sadly, are here to stay and am sure Hans Blix already knows that.

He should focus on what he can do, which is to help stop the proliferation of these weapons through political or other means. The more countries that have nukes, the more likely one will eventually be used and it doesn't necessarily have to be via missile or bomb... could be handed to a small group of nutcases that would detonate it inside a city.

Thing is the bad guys will try to get them no matter how well intentioned everyone else is and in the end you'll have bad guys with nukes and civilization with their ****s in their hands. It's like gun control. Does gun control prevent criminals from owning guns? Of course not. It does leave everybody else at their mercy though.

[name already taken]

Damnit... i was going to shoot you down because I read it as you "don't" agree with it. But sadly this is the truth. Which is why, what Blix says make sense. Whether its going to happen or not, I guess doesn't really matter, because it won't, but the US can't realistically ask a country that is a potential enemy to not develop nukes when the US probably has more than the rest of the world combined.

I do disagree often.

It's because I try to do my homework of cutting through propaganda as much as possible, would it come from the east or from the west.

So you may shoot me down, but I would probably disagree with you :-P

[name already taken]

Thing is the bad guys will try to get them no matter how well intentioned everyone else is and in the end you'll have bad guys with nukes and civilization with their ****s in their hands. It's like gun control. Does gun control prevent criminals from owning guns? Of course not. It does leave everybody else at their mercy though.
Everybody else, yes, and more so their direct competitors.

[MichaelF]

Soviet leaders also didn't have a belief that once they died fighting the bad guys they would be rewarded with 72 virgins heh
.

The 72 Virgins crowd are controlled, funded and coordinated by men who have geopolitical goals and a decent grasp on reality.

They have their own rice bowls to protect, such as their safe havens (note what happened to Afghanistan when AQ poked the US too hard). Upping the ante to a certain point (nuclear) endangers these, and as such, is unacceptable.

[name already taken]

The 72 Virgins crowd are controlled, funded and coordinated by men who have geopolitical goals and a decent grasp on reality.

They have their own rice bowls to protect, such as their safe havens (note what happened to Afghanistan when AQ poked the US too hard). Upping the ante to a certain point (nuclear) endangers these, and as such, is unacceptable.
Unacceptable and probably unavoidable.

When survival instinct is involved, you soon get to realize how dangerous humans can be.

These 72 virgins were invented to tame that a little bit.

Maybe if the Pentagon invented a 73 virgins story which people believed in...

[MichaelF]

Unacceptable but probably unavoidable.

How so? The zanies have no independant method of operations on the scale that would be required to snag a nuke.

The footsoldiers are either localized and unsophisticated (as in Iraq/Afghanistan) or in small cells that lack the infrastructure (and cash).

The puppetmasters have their controls in place (cash and support).

[name already taken]

How so? The zanies have no independant method of operations on the scale that would be required to snag a nuke.

The footsoldiers are either localized and unsophisticated (as in Iraq/Afghanistan) or in small cells that lack the infrastructure (and cash).

The puppetmasters have their controls in place (cash and support).
Unavoidable except if you bomb the world into a giant parking lot.

But then you're dead meat within one year.

Too bad. Better luck next time.

[Thor]

Hate to break it to you people, but the nuclear holocaust is a mathematical certainty. It's just a matter of time.


Anything else is like believing that WWI was the war to end all wars.

[name already taken]

Hate to break it to you people, but the nuclear holocaust is a mathematical certainty. It's just a matter of time.


Anything else is like believing that WWI was the war to end all wars.
You're right, but humans are sufficiently unpredictable to avoid this pretty easily.

Except, of course if it's done on purpose, preemptively, by some future dumbarse of the week.

[MichaelF]

Hate to break it to you people, but the nuclear holocaust is a mathematical certainty. It's just a matter of time.

Define Nuclear "Holocaust".

If Russia and the US went at it with both barrels (total commitment, vice a limited exchange), it would disrupt the global economy, due to the destruction of the North American markets and the Russian resource fields.

Short of that, the damage would be confined to the target areas.

Airburst weapons don't generate the fallout that groundbursts do. Most weapons are kiloton yield.

"Nuclear Winters" (a flawed theory) are contingent upon massive amounts of particulate matter being blasted into the stratosphere. That won't happen with the weapons in use today.

IOW, unless you get hit, you are pretty safe.

Even if we used Megaton-yield groundbursts, the climate would only drop by several degrees, lasting less than a decade.

Nuclear weapons arent a Extinction-level threat.

It's even less dangerous if two of the 2nd rate nuclear powers, such as China and India or Pakistan and India, go at it. Their exchange will be localized, with many fewer weapons.

You are, however, correct. As time passes, the probability of a nuclear exchange, of some magnitute or other, approaches 1.

[name already taken]

Define Nuclear "Holocaust".

If Russia and the US went at it with both barrels (total commitment, vice a limited exchange), it would disrupt the global economy, due to the destruction of the North American markets and the Russian resource fields.

Short of that, the damage would be confined to the target areas.

Airburst weapons don't generate the fallout that groundbursts do. Most weapons are kiloton yield.

"Nuclear Winters" (a flawed theory) are contingent upon massive amounts of particulate matter being blasted into the stratosphere. That won't happen with the weapons in use today.

IOW, unless you get hit, you are pretty safe.

Even if we used Megaton-yield groundbursts, the climate would only drop by several degrees, lasting less than a decade.

Nuclear weapons arent a Extinction-level threat.

It's even less dangerous if two of the 2nd rate nuclear powers, such as China and India or Pakistan and India, go at it. Their exchange will be localized, with many fewer weapons.

You are, however, correct. As time passes, the probability of a nuclear exchange, of some magnitute or other, approaches 1.
I don't know what's the interest of creating self fulfilling predictions in that field.

Nobody knows the future and it's probably better that way.

[TR1]

Funny he doesn't mention where the other 15,000 nukes are. Guess we know where he get's his "other" paycheck.
he probably felt he didnt need to point out the obvious.:roll:

[sferrin]

he probably felt he didnt need to point out the obvious.:roll:

Interesting that he felt compelled to point out that the US has a lot of nukes. As if nobody knew that. :roll:

[Midav]

The 72 Virgins crowd are controlled, funded and coordinated by men who have geopolitical goals and a decent grasp on reality.

They have their own rice bowls to protect, such as their safe havens (note what happened to Afghanistan when AQ poked the US too hard). Upping the ante to a certain point (nuclear) endangers these, and as such, is unacceptable.

Even if 100% true, nobody can guarantee that will always be the case. People thought they could control Hitler as well....

[usa320]

blix can suck it....

[MichaelF]

Even if 100% true, nobody can guarantee that will always be the case. People thought they could control Hitler as well....

Hitler never used the (sizeable) Chemical and Biological weapons stockpile he had access to.

[Midav]

Hitler never used the (sizeable) Chemical and Biological weapons stockpile he had access to.

Nope. But he was one of the central figures that caused the greatest conflict mankind has known...

[Eusebius]

Hans should eat ****.

[MichaelF]

Nope. But he was one of the central figures that caused the greatest conflict mankind has known...

And this applies to Nuclear weapons?

Hitler (even in the later War, when he was crazier than a bag of ferrets) never escalated to the point where the retaliation (a Biochem-based conflict) would poison the cost-benefit ratio.

Again, even the more oddball Leaders do not cross lines which lead to lose-lose scenarios. They want to (and believe they can) win. A nuclear exchange with a greater or equivalent opponent automatically removes the possibility of a win.

Kim (about as loony as they get) wants the Bomb in order to prop up his regime and be able to nix a "regime change". Not so he can glaze the ROK (US retaliates with nuclear weapons and the ROK Army stomps North Korea).

[Midav]

And this applies to Nuclear weapons?

Hitler (even in the later War, when he was crazier than a bag of ferrets) never escalated to the point where the retaliation (a Biochem-based conflict) would poison the cost-benefit ratio.

Again, even the more oddball Leaders do not cross lines which lead to lose-lose scenarios. They want to (and believe they can) win. A nuclear exchange with a greater or equivalent opponent automatically removes the possibility of a win.

Kim (about as loony as they get) wants the Bomb in order to prop up his regime and be able to nix a "regime change". Not so he can glaze the ROK (US retaliates with nuclear weapons and the ROK Army stomps North Korea).

It applies to what we were talking about.. some people just don't care. Never be so naive to discount that. We just talked about a guy that caused the deaths of 10's of millions of people.

We all may want to think we live in a perfect world and everyone shares our beliefs. That in itself is a mistake. The more nukes are passed around, the more likely they will be used. Chemical weapons have already been used several times since their inception. Best known example is the Japanese subway system.

[name already taken]

And this applies to Nuclear weapons?

Hitler (even in the later War, when he was crazier than a bag of ferrets) never escalated to the point where the retaliation (a Biochem-based conflict) would poison the cost-benefit ratio.

What about Auschwitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz) ?

[Smersh]

Why all this anger towards Blix. Some people are defending american nuclear weapons like he is talking about eradicating baseball. It seems, to me, hyprocratic for the USA to tell other nations to halt nuclear development, while not itself halting its own nuclear weapons development. Or am I assualting american culture here?

[MichaelF]

What about Auschwitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz) ?

Did he use Zyclon, or any other chemical, on Allied troops or civilians in contested areas?

You understand the difference?

[MichaelF]

It applies to what we were talking about.. some people just don't care. Never be so naive to discount that. We just talked about a guy that caused the deaths of 10's of millions of people.
.

But yet chose not to use a weapon (that he possessed, in quantity) that would have caused massive retaliation, in kind, by the Allies.

Why?

Same reason the Pakistanis do not try to settle the Kashmir Question with The Bomb.

Same reason we did not feed Hanoi a nuke.

Too much to lose for little gain.

[Smersh]

But yet chose not to use a weapon (that he possessed, in quantity) that would have caused massive retaliation, in kind, by the Allies...Too much to lose for little gain.

I agree with your points MichealF but...

what did Hitler exactly stand to lose in the closing days of world war two?

[Felix U. Gómez]

Why all this anger towards Blix. Some people are defending american nuclear weapons like he is talking about eradicating baseball. It seems, to me, hyprocratic for the USA to tell other nations to halt nuclear development, while not itself halting its own nuclear weapons development. Or am I assualting american culture here?

How dare you come on this site and make a sensible, logical and intelligent statement. I totally agree with you.
Blix is pointing out the US nuclear arsenal and program and not the Russian one, primarily because the Russians don't go around telling everybody that they can't develop and have nuclear weapons. The United States does.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

This thread belongs in the moral relativist hall of fame. Try this exercise - why is it acceptable for police to carry firearms, yet we don't let felons have them? It's exactly the same idea. The issue is not the gun, it's who has it. The issue is not nuclear weapons, the issue is the belief system and agenda behind them. I swear to God that half of you would argue that had Nazi Germany somehow survived WWII, that the UN must let Hitler have nuclear weapons, because well, other people have them. I think humanity is slowly breeding away the self-preservation gene.

I understand that some of you can't bring yourselves to recognize that there is a "right direction" for humanity, indeed can't bring yourselves to articulate the idea that any belief system is better or worse than any other. Thankfully, during the last few wars, there were enough people around who could still think on their feet, and not engage in this silly tit-for-tat relativist garbage.

[Smersh]

why is it acceptable for police to carry firearms, yet we don't let felons have them? It's exactly the same idea.Now the United States is the self declared world policemen protecting the world from national felons?

No one has argued giving person (hitler) or country any nuclear weapons. I never even said we should allow other people to have nuclear weapons. personally, I'm strictly against nuclear proliferation. A silly tit-for-tat?, this is a discussion forum isn't it? and we are talking about the most destructive weapons mankind has ever created.

What is this "right direction"?

[name already taken]

Did he use Zyclon, or any other chemical, on Allied troops or civilians in contested areas?

You understand the difference?
No I don't.

[Pte Schwede]

I really don´t understand all the criticism and bollocks towards Hans Blix. I belive he has a point and a really good one. How comes that one nation that has their own fair share of nukes can criticise and do what it can to stop other nations from developing their own nukes? What is it that makes that nation rightful and the other ones the opposite?

I belive Mr Blix is a courageus person and deserves a lot of respect for what he stands for.

[Atlantic Friend]

So, Blix calls for voluntary nuclear disarmament, just like dozens of scientists, politicians or self-appointed philosophers have done before. And tomorrow, the sun will still rise from the East, and shed its light over our collective nuclear arsenal before setting to the West.

[Midav]

But yet chose not to use a weapon (that he possessed, in quantity) that would have caused massive retaliation, in kind, by the Allies.

Why?

Same reason the Pakistanis do not try to settle the Kashmir Question with The Bomb.

Same reason we did not feed Hanoi a nuke.

Too much to lose for little gain.

Perhaps the reason why Hitler did not use them on the Allies was because he himself was gassed in WW1. How many world leaders/crazy people can say they were nuked? Then again, Zyklon B was used in WW2.

On a seperate note, Chemicals were used in conflicts in the past. Saddam even used them. Had nukes been available, would they have been used? No on can say for sure either way.

[MichaelF]

what did Hitler exactly stand to lose in the closing days of world war two?

According to surviving accounts, he thought he could win (imaginary armies sweeping in to break the cordon around Berlin, etc) right up until a few hours before he killed himself.

At that point he didn't have comms with the personnel in charge of the stockpiles, nor would they have accepted an order to deploy Biochemical weapons. At that point it was clear they would be called to account for their actions by a victorious Alliance.

[MichaelF]

This thread belongs in the moral relativist hall of fame. Try this exercise - why is it acceptable for police to carry firearms, yet we don't let felons have them? It's exactly the same idea. The issue is not the gun, it's who has it. The issue is not nuclear weapons, the issue is the belief system and agenda behind them. I swear to God that half of you would argue that had Nazi Germany somehow survived WWII, that the UN must let Hitler have nuclear weapons, because well, other people have them. I think humanity is slowly breeding away the self-preservation gene.

I understand that some of you can't bring yourselves to recognize that there is a "right direction" for humanity, indeed can't bring yourselves to articulate the idea that any belief system is better or worse than any other. Thankfully, during the last few wars, there were enough people around who could still think on their feet, and not engage in this silly tit-for-tat relativist garbage.


DING DING.

2sheds wins.

[name already taken]

So, Blix calls for voluntary nuclear disarmament, just like dozens of scientists, politicians or self-appointed philosophers have done before. And tomorrow, the sun will still rise from the East, and shed its light over our collective nuclear arsenal before setting to the West.
With dozens of scientists, politicians and self-appointed philosophers repeating their message like a toothpaste ad.

Then, suddenly, a new problem arrived, and the powers that be, incapable to solve it rapidly or at all, had to take action, to show their great power. The only one thing they found to distract the population was nuclear disarmement. Sure it did not solve the new problem. But it sure distracted the population well and had great entertainment value in the media.

And now, dozens of scientists, politicians and self-appointed philosophers repeat their brand new message like a toothpaste ad. It's about a new threath nobody understands very well...

But dozens of scientists, politicians and self-appointed philosophers keep repeating and repeating and repeating their message as if they were advertising toothpaste, sure there will be someday a sign from above that will guide our great leaders in the right direction.

Amen.

[MichaelF]

Now the United States is the self declared world policemen protecting the world from national felons?


Yes.


Our interests (which allow the way of life we enjoy) require us to make sure that certain noises (nukes, bioweapons, disruption of commerce) be kept down to a dull roar.

Hence getting up in someone's face when they try to develop nukes and we don't think they are responsible enough.

And, yes, we have screwed it up once or twice. Allowing Pakistan to develop the Bomb was a huge error on our part. It came at a time when we were incapable of acting on that scale (post-Vietnam, pre-Reagan).

(relativism): I doubt Russia would allow/accept the Ukraine or Poland developing a nuclear arsenal. Neither would the PRC accept an ROC weapons program.

[SBL]

This thread belongs in the moral relativist hall of fame. Try this exercise - why is it acceptable for police to carry firearms, yet we don't let felons have them? It's exactly the same idea. The issue is not the gun, it's who has it. The issue is not nuclear weapons, the issue is the belief system and agenda behind them. I swear to God that half of you would argue that had Nazi Germany somehow survived WWII, that the UN must let Hitler have nuclear weapons, because well, other people have them. I think humanity is slowly breeding away the self-preservation gene.

I understand that some of you can't bring yourselves to recognize that there is a "right direction" for humanity, indeed can't bring yourselves to articulate the idea that any belief system is better or worse than any other. Thankfully, during the last few wars, there were enough people around who could still think on their feet, and not engage in this silly tit-for-tat relativist garbage.

2Sheds, you know darn well that if the Police would give up their firearms, criminals wouldn't need to carry them and would be shamed into giving them up or marginalized.p-)

[MichaelF]

On a seperate note, Chemicals were used in conflicts in the past. Saddam even used them.

You are correct.

However, that proves the theory.

Saddam used his Chems on an opponent who could not reply in kind. The Iranians had no NBC program at that time (well, they did, but it was in the chalkboard stages). Neither did the Kurds, obviously.

As the US and USSR found out early on, both sides having equivalent NBC arsenals essentially canceles them out, and complicates your conventional operations (push the enemy too hard with your conventional forces, and he may push the button anyway, to prevent a defeat).

[MichaelF]

No I don't.

People in the Death Camps couldn't gas Berlin.

[name already taken]

Yes.


Our interests (which allow the way of life we enjoy) require us to make sure that certain noises (nukes, bioweapons, disruption of commerce) be kept down to a dull roar.

Hence getting up in someone's face when they try to develop nukes and we don't think they are responsible enough.

And, yes, we have screwed it up once or twice. Allowing Pakistan to develop the Bomb was a huge error on our part. It came at a time when we were incapable of acting on that scale (post-Vietnam, pre-Reagan).

(relativism): I doubt Russia would allow/accept the Ukraine or Poland developing a nuclear arsenal. Neither would the PRC accept an ROC weapons program.
Enjoy while it lasts :)

[Midav]

You are correct.

However, that proves the theory.

Saddam used his Chems on an opponent who could not reply in kind. The Iranians had no NBC program at that time (well, they did, but it was in the chalkboard stages). Neither did the Kurds, obviously.

As the US and USSR found out early on, both sides having equivalent NBC arsenals essentially canceles them out, and complicates your conventional operations (push the enemy too hard with your conventional forces, and he may push the button anyway, to prevent a defeat).

You are incorrect. Iran used Chemicals as well.

http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960702/72566_01.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/cw.htm

The point I am making, the more the weapons are proliferated, the more likely they will be used. It doesn't necessarily have to be government sponsored as well.

Tokyo gas attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway)

[PPSH41]

Enjoy while it lasts :)

I'd say you should enjoy it while it lasts. I fully support bringing our troops home and placing them on our borders where they belong. Leave you guys to your own devices.

[Kroforit]

No I don't.


There is a difference.
Hitler saw jews as lowest kind of humans who needed to be eradicated. He did see most of the world as his dominion where people would eventually love him as he created a better world. Thats why he never used weapons that would practicaly leave him as the king of rubble and corpses.

[name already taken]

I'd say you should enjoy it while it lasts. I fully support bringing our troops home and placing them on our borders where they belong. Leave you guys to your own devices.
You can't. We have your oil here in Alberta.

[Kroforit]

So, Blix calls for voluntary nuclear disarmament, just like dozens of scientists, politicians or self-appointed philosophers have done before. And tomorrow, the sun will still rise from the East, and shed its light over our collective nuclear arsenal before setting to the West.


If gays stayed quiet, they would still not be tolerated in Europe, but we know that they are. There is a paradox in this, gay right movements forced western world to accepte them and essentialy go against evolution, but voices against nuclear prolifirations are unheard, thus we still go against evolution.

[PPSH41]

You can't. We have your oil in Alberta.

Well, I didn't really mean it that way. We really should strengthen our relationships with our neighbors in the Americas, especially those directly north and south. I suggest withdrawing our troops and closing up our bases outside the Americas.

[Kroforit]

You can't. We have your oil here in Alberta.


... .lol

[MichaelF]

You are incorrect. Iran used Chemicals as well.

http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960702/72566_01.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/cw.htm



Iran developed an NBC program during the War. Saddam used Gas when the Iranians couldnt respond in kind. When they could, he stopped doing it (but continued using it on the Kurds).

As for NBC weapons in the hands of non-State Actors (Terror groups, cults, etc): They are reliant on what they can fabricate themselves. That leaves nukes out. The infrastructure required is too massive for anyone to do it covertly, and the devices produced by States are (literally) National Treasures, subject to intense security.

Biochemical weapons cannot be suppressed, by their very nature. Irritant, Blister and Blood Gasses can be synthesized in small labs, from common precursors. Nerve agents are slightly harder, but as the Aum showed, very possible. Bioweapons are a spinoff from standard medical research.

Good luck stopping either of them.

[Klatuu]

They are reliant on what they can fabricate themselves.

Or buy. Or steal. Both of which are easier from a tin-horn dictatorship without a good system of controls.


That leaves nukes out.

No it doesn't.

Sounds familar, though.


Yes—don't worry.
— Captain Michel Asseline, Air France, last recorded words, in reply to copilot Captain Pierre Mazieres alerting him to watch out for the pylons ahead. Ten seconds the A-320 crashed into trees during an airshow. 26 June 1988.

Reverser's deployed!
— First Officer Josef Thurner, Air Lauda 004, last recorded words during 'impossible' in-flight deployment of the B-767's thrust reverser. 26 May 1991.

How could they possibly be Japanese planes?
— Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, December 7, 1941

When my brother and I built the first man-carrying flying machine we thought that we were introducing into the world an invention which would make further wars practically impossible.

— Orville Wright, 1917.

Another popular fallacy is to suppose that flying machines could be used to drop dynamite on an enemy in time of war.

— William H. Pickering, 'Aeronautics,' 1908.

To affirm that the aeroplane is going to 'revolutionize' navel warfare of the future is to be guilty of the wildest exaggeration.
— 'Scientific American,' 16 July 1910.

Aviation is fine as a sport. But as an instrument of war, it is worthless.
— General Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superiure de Guere, 1911.

It is not possible . . . to concentrate enough military planes with military loads over a modern city to destroy that city.
— US Colonel John W. Thomason Jr., November 1937.

No enemy bomber can reach the Ruhr. If one reaches the Ruhr, my name is not Goering. You may call me Meyer.
— Herman Goering, German Air Force Minister, addressing the German Air force, September 1939.

[Dakota435]

You can't. We have your oil here in Alberta.

Where in Alberta are you, roughly?

[Midav]

Iran developed an NBC program during the War. Saddam used Gas when the Iranians couldnt respond in kind. When they could, he stopped doing it (but continued using it on the Kurds).

As for NBC weapons in the hands of non-State Actors (Terror groups, cults, etc): They are reliant on what they can fabricate themselves. That leaves nukes out. The infrastructure required is too massive for anyone to do it covertly, and the devices produced by States are (literally) National Treasures, subject to intense security.

Biochemical weapons cannot be suppressed, by their very nature. Irritant, Blister and Blood Gasses can be synthesized in small labs, from common precursors. Nerve agents are slightly harder, but as the Aum showed, very possible. Bioweapons are a spinoff from standard medical research.

Good luck stopping either of them.

Oddly enough, above you said
Saddam used his Chems on an opponent who could not reply in kind.

Yet that does not negate the fact Iran replied in kind and both sides used the weapons. Do you understand what I am saying? Weapons you and I deem terrible were used. Not all people think as you and I do.

Why are we debating? In the end, we are agreeing that should nuclear weapons be proliferated, they eventually will be used. It is not a question of if, but rather, when.

As I have said before, it may not even be government sponsored.... groups with agendas would use them. It's a bad idea to have these weapons go around the world.

[name already taken]

Or buy. Or steal. Both of which are easier from a tin-horn dictatorship without a good system of controls.


That leaves nukes out. The infrastructure required is too massive for anyone to do it covertly.


No it doesn't.

Sounds familar, though.


Yes—don't worry.
— Captain Michel Asseline, Air France, last recorded words, in reply to copilot Captain Pierre Mazieres alerting him to watch out for the pylons ahead. Ten seconds the A-320 crashed into trees during an airshow. 26 June 1988.


Reverser's deployed!
— First Officer Josef Thurner, Air Lauda 004, last recorded words during 'impossible' in-flight deployment of the B-767's thrust reverser. 26 May 1991.


How could they possibly be Japanese planes?
— Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, December 7, 1941


When my brother and I built the first man-carrying flying machine we thought that we were introducing into the world an invention which would make further wars practically impossible.


— Orville Wright, 1917.



Another popular fallacy is to suppose that flying machines could be used to drop dynamite on an enemy in time of war.


— William H. Pickering, 'Aeronautics,' 1908.



To affirm that the aeroplane is going to 'revolutionize' navel warfare of the future is to be guilty of the wildest exaggeration.
— 'Scientific American,' 16 July 1910.


Aviation is fine as a sport. But as an instrument of war, it is worthless.
— General Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superiure de Guere, 1911.


It is not possible . . . to concentrate enough military planes with military loads over a modern city to destroy that city.
— US Colonel John W. Thomason Jr., November 1937.


No enemy bomber can reach the Ruhr. If one reaches the Ruhr, my name is not Goering. You may call me Meyer.
— Herman Goering, German Air Force Minister, addressing the German Air force, September 1939.

The most difficult to obtain for a nuclear weapon in the fissile material.

It requires a huge industrial complex, world class scientists, and years of work for all this to get your first pound of weapon grade fissile material.

And some of it has short shelf life. Example: to build very small nuclear bombs, it requires a few short lived isotopes which are essential in their design.

It's difficult to hide such an industry for a period of ten years. The result of which are still finicky and difficult to handle.

Furthermore, any precursors you might get are traceable to the individual reactor who produced them.

The only way to avoid all this is to produce your weapon on another planet. Which might get possible somewhere in the future.

But in the meantime, it's much easier to go with bio-chemical weapons which are much more manageable and easy to handle.

There's a much better cost/benefit ratio with these for any wannabe power that be.

[MichaelF]

Oddly enough, above you said
.

Iraq used them while the Iranians could not. When (after the Iranians developed their own arsenal) they both could, chemical warfare stopped.

Why? Deterrence. Presence of weapons on both sides degraded the strategic advantage to the point where they were not useful as a force multipliers to either side.

[MichaelF]

Or buy. Or steal. Both of which are easier from a tin-horn dictatorship without a good system of controls.


No tin-horn dictatorship currently posseses a nuclear capability.

Pakistan's nukes are as secure as they get.

Why? Because the Pakistanis believe they are the only thing keeping the Indian Army away. They have guards on the guards who guard the guards.

Not like you can just check one out from the armory...

[Dakota435]

I wish Hans was a bad documentary film maker specializing in rural poverty who got canceled by his studio. Then we'd see a headline like this in Variety:

Blix Pix About Hicks In Sticks Not Fixed, Will Be Nixed

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I wish Hans was a bad documentary film maker specializing in rural poverty who got canceled by his studio. Then we'd see a headline like this in Variety:

Blix Pix About Hicks In Sticks Not Fixed, Will Be Nixed


:cantbeli: Oh man. If there was any justice in the world, you'd be subject to sanctions for that one.

But back on track.



He likened the UN Security Council members to fathers who smoke but who prohibit their children from smoking.


This is my problem with Blix - not that reducing the number of warheads is a bad idea in general, but his idiotic assertion that we are somehow all the same. Calling Iran "our children" is foolish and fails to account for how culturally backward their government (who would control the nukes) is.



The Iranian Supreme Court has vacated the murder convictions of a group of serial killers because their victims were engaging in un-Islamic activities, the British Broadcasting Corp. reports.
The men were convicted for a series of grisly killings in the southeastern city of Kerman in 2002. The vigilantes were said to believe that Islam condoned the killing of anyone engaged in illicit activities if they issued two warnings to the victims, the BBC reports.
At least 18 people were killed on the murder spree, but the men were only tried for five of the deaths. Some of the victims were stoned, others were suffocated and at least one man was buried alive, according to the vigilantes' confessions.
These men told the court that their understanding of the teachings of one Islamic cleric allowed them to kill immoral people if they had ignored two warnings to stop their bad behavior, according to the BBC.
The Supreme Court has overturned the verdict of a lower court that found all the men guilty of murder five times, according to lawyers for the victims' families. The vigilantes may still be liable for monetary damages.



There's already another thread on this...but I thought it folded very nicely into this argument. Blix, and others here, apparently think that the US and Europe share the same decision-making criteria as Iran, for example. Their supreme court ruling shows otherwise. Considering the fact that Europe and the US are also engaged in lots of un-Islamic activities, shall we allow their nation the means to "correct" our behavior?

[name already taken]

:cantbeli: Oh man. If there was any justice in the world, you'd be subject to sanctions for that one.

But back on track.



This is my problem with Blix - not that reducing the number of warheads is a bad idea in general, but his idiotic assertion that we are somehow all the same. Calling Iran "our children" is foolish and fails to account for how culturally backward their government (who would control the nukes) is.



There's already another thread on this...but I thought it folded very nicely into this argument. Blix, and others here, apparently think that the US and Europe share the same decision-making criteria as Iran, for example. Their supreme court ruling shows otherwise. Considering the fact that Europe and the US are also engaged in lots of un-Islamic activities, shall we allow their nation the means to "correct" our behavior?
It's a fact they could consider us to be their children.

But the mere fact that nuclear weapons are not mentiond in the Kuran leaves me thinking... that they would have to get fast into the 21st century.

But, there could be some poetic description somewhere in the Kuran that could fit.

So yes, Blix could be wrong on this.

[sferrin]

Now the United States is the self declared world policemen protecting the world from national felons?

Hmm Russia has quite a few nukes as well so I suppose you also feel that Russia is the "self declared policemen protecting the world from national felons"? Or are they turning in all their nuclear weapons? Oh wait, they're deploying new Topol-Ms, Bulavas, a new class of SSBN, and the nuclear Kh-101. Those who live in glass houses.

[TR1]

Hmm Russia has quite a few nukes as well so I suppose you also feel that Russia is the "self declared policemen protecting the world from national felons"? Or are they turning in all their nuclear weapons? Oh wait, they're deploying new Topol-Ms, Bulavas, a new class of SSBN, and the nuclear Kh-101. Those who live in glass houses.
Kh 101 programme has been cancelled for while now.

[Dakota435]

Hmm Russia has quite a few nukes as well so I suppose you also feel that Russia is the "self declared policemen protecting the world from national felons"? Or are they turning in all their nuclear weapons? Oh wait, they're deploying new Topol-Ms, Bulavas, a new class of SSBN, and the nuclear Kh-101. Those who live in glass houses.

Somebody's gotta do it. Europe sure can't.

[loganinkosovo]

Just another salvo from the Hate America First Crowd.......

[Klatuu]

Pakistan's nukes are as secure as they get.


U.S. nuclear weapon storage facilities have been broken into and stolen from successfully in many drills, even when the security knew the raid was coming (which they kinda have to, or real bullets fly).

You want to sell improbable, I'm with you. You want to sell the idea that other types of WMD attacks are much more likely, I think it's a safe bet. You want to sell impossible, that's a bag of polar bear feathers.

Until it breaks laws of physics, it is not impossible, and acting like it is impossible is setting up a mindset that begs to be humbled.

Over time, due to the advancement of technology and the creation of ever greater wealth that brings that technology to levels affordable by private interests, the probability that a nuclear weapon will be attempted to be used in a terrorist attack will reach 100%, unless some other factor intervenes. That's mathematical fact. The question is "how long?", not "if?". 1 year, 20, maybe not even for 100, but that day is coming.

[MichaelF]

You want to sell improbable, I'm with you. You want to sell the idea that other types of WMD attacks are much more likely, I think it's a safe bet. You want to sell impossible, that's a bag of polar bear feathers.


Agreed.

Sure, it's possible, but it's up there with AQ redirecting asteroids to hit Chicago.

[Jobu]

Hans Brix failed twice, as head of IAEA and UNMOVIC so why should anyone listen to him now?

[Hollis]

I get a funny feeling Blix does not like the US.

[houdakye]

Everyone hates us, because they want to be like us.

[Lau]

Everyone hates us, because they want to be like us.

ROFLMAo!! rofl

Dont count on it mate. :roll:

[Indiana Jones]

Everyone hates us, because they want to be like us.
Oh please. First of all, if you should come around a little you will notice that there are not too many people around that genuinely hate "you", as a nation or collective entity. Secondly, there are not too many people that want to be like "you" either. De facto, most do not particularly care about "you".
Well, its the internet, but what a bloody kindergarten here.

[Midav]

Iran developed an NBC program during the War. Saddam used Gas when the Iranians couldnt respond in kind. When they could, he stopped doing it (but continued using it on the Kurds).

As for NBC weapons in the hands of non-State Actors (Terror groups, cults, etc): They are reliant on what they can fabricate themselves. That leaves nukes out. The infrastructure required is too massive for anyone to do it covertly, and the devices produced by States are (literally) National Treasures, subject to intense security.

Biochemical weapons cannot be suppressed, by their very nature. Irritant, Blister and Blood Gasses can be synthesized in small labs, from common precursors. Nerve agents are slightly harder, but as the Aum showed, very possible. Bioweapons are a spinoff from standard medical research.

Good luck stopping either of them.

Chemicals were used throughout the war.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm

And to completely discount terror groups from receiving nukes is naive. No, I don't live in a perpetual state of fear. But, I won't lose track of reality as well. If there is a chance of something happening it is just a matter of time. It could be today. It could be tomorrow. It could be 5000 years from now.

There are people that do not think as you and I do. They just do not care.