Nuclear Proliferation-Is the Genie Out of the Bottle?

[SilentType]

It would appear that Iran now has enough nuclear material to manufacture a nuclear weapon and they appear to be making continued progress in their development of intermediate range and long range missiles.

Syria is now accussed of having a nuclear weapons program.

North Korea most likely will reconstitute their nuclear weapons program if it is not active already.

Pakistan and India of course are already nuclear.

Should President Elect Obama carry out his pledge to cut missile defense at this point in time? Does it not appear that despite the international diplomatic efforts that multiple nations will soon have possession of nuclear weapons with perhaps many more to follow? I'm not sure how much longer the world can expect to prevent nuclear proliferation. It would appear that even though we might be able to delay nuclear proliferation that it is inevitable.

I believe the likelyhood of a small nuclear exchange between non-super power nations is highly likely within the next ten years. What do you folks think?

[Dragonscript]

I think that MAD only works against countries that have large numbers of nuclear weapons each, if it worked at all in the first place. If more countries are trying to get nuclear weapons, the US needs to keep building its missile defense shield.

Personally i would like to see the US cut its nuclear weapons down to about a dozen and have a strong shield in place. Any large nuclear strike against the US would devastate the world environment, completely screwing over whoever launched the attack in the first place, so there would be no need for the US to respond. Second, even if a single nuclear weapon went off on US soil, the US wouldn't respond with a nuclear strike. We would just destroy/kill everything/body with conventional weapons, no need for NBC warfare.

[dindin]

if usa attack by nuclear bomb, usa should respond with nuclear.
iran signe npt israel india pak doesnt,

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I'm not sure how much longer the world can expect to prevent nuclear proliferation. It would appear that even though we might be able to delay nuclear proliferation that it is inevitable.

I tend to think that it has always, even from the beginning been exactly as inevitable - what's different now is that many have lost the will to do what's required to stop it.

[xav]

Are nuclear weapons becoming easier to make as time goes by? Is there new technologies making it easier to access for smaller countries?

Or is it always going to be a tricky thing to develop no matter what?

[Dragonscript]

Are nuclear weapons becoming easier to make as time goes by? Is there new technologies making it easier to access for smaller countries?

Or is it always going to be a tricky thing to develop no matter what?

Yes, Yes & Yes

[oldsoak]

Are we surprised ? The physics is well known .
If 1940's America can do it, any country with the same level of technology can.
As much as we like to think we can control this, how can we ? Corruption, theft - all these work against us.

[Andrew Chalmers]

I think that MAD only works against countries that have large numbers of nuclear weapons each, if it worked at all in the first place. If more countries are trying to get nuclear weapons, the US needs to keep building its missile defense shield.

That goes against every nuclear weapon doctrine in existence. MAD is a deterrent against ALL rational actors - there is no requirement that each side has proportional capabilities. For example - France maintains a minimal deterrence doctrine; maintaining mere sufficient number of deployable warheads that could survive a first strike.

A missile defense shield assumes that the other is irrational and will launch a unilateral but not devastating first strike.


Personally i would like to see the US cut its nuclear weapons down to about a dozen and have a strong shield in place.

Down to a dozen? So we will have SSBMs floating around with one nuclear warhead out of a possible 24 Tridents?


Any large nuclear strike against the US would devastate the world environment, completely screwing over whoever launched the attack in the first place, so there would be no need for the US to respond.

Seriously? :roll:



Second, even if a single nuclear weapon went off on US soil, the US wouldn't respond with a nuclear strike. We would just destroy/kill everything/body with conventional weapons, no need for NBC warfare.

Again - seriously? :roll: So why have MAD doctrine at all?

[seraosha]

I think that MAD only works against countries that have large numbers of nuclear weapons each, if it worked at all in the first place. If more countries are trying to get nuclear weapons, the US needs to keep building its missile defense shield.

Personally i would like to see the US cut its nuclear weapons down to about a dozen and have a strong shield in place. Any large nuclear strike against the US would devastate the world environment, completely screwing over whoever launched the attack in the first place, so there would be no need for the US to respond. Second, even if a single nuclear weapon went off on US soil, the US wouldn't respond with a nuclear strike. We would just destroy/kill everything/body with conventional weapons, no need for NBC warfare.

I don't think you really have a strong grasp of the issues relevant to this topic.

MAD is working...as proof of no nuclear exchange the last 50 years or so.
There have been quite a few nuclear bombs tested around the globe for a number of years...so far no nuclear winter nor environmental collapse, although the arsenals the respective world powers have would do so if used in their entirety. A "lone rogue state" or terrorist group that detonates a nuclear device wouldn't be launching it in an ICBM, because to leave the smoking gun trail back to the launch pad would spell certain death to the rogue state or group...a swift, glowing in the dark kind of retaliation.

A strong ballistic shield is a preventive measure that is independent of our ability to strike with nuclear warhead missiles...it merely gives a better chance of stopping an incoming missile attack, when a nuclear fist of God coming back at you defense is not an actual deterrent.

No offense man, but you didn't grow up during the Cold War, did you?

[Dragonscript]

MAD is a deterrent against ALL rational actors

What about the irrational ones?

What do you think would happen if Russia nukes the US? That is what we are talking about since nobody else right now has the ability to. First of all, it would be a large scale attack, enough so that it would prevent the US from striking back. So if it was a large strike then several dozens, if not hundreds, of US cities would be destroyed with millions dead, but what would the aftermath be?

First of all the, the world economy would be in worse shape then it is right now, a world wide depression. The US is 1/4th the world's economy itself, we are talking about world wide economic collapse. All the food the US produces for the world: gone. All that fall out would plume into the jet stream and cover Europe & Africa, causing further economic collapse & crops to fail. Nuclear winter would affect the rest of the world, causing more crops to fail and further economic problems.

With the US gone and Europe with its own problems, wars would erupt around the world as long held resentments, border clashes and plain resource grabs engulf the world.

Honestly, if Russia nuked the US i say we not respond with nukes. It would be too quick a death for them. Let the world tear itself apart with war and let the following nuclear winter kill most of the survivors.

Second, what if the US was attacked by a single nuclear weapon. Would the US respond with nuclear weapons itself? Most likely not, no reason to when we have alternatives.

seraosha:


I don't think you really have a strong grasp of the issues relevant to this topic.

MAD is working...as proof of no nuclear exchange the last 50 years or so.
There have been quite a few nuclear bombs tested around the globe for a number of years...so far no nuclear winter nor environmental collapse, although the arsenals the respective world powers have would do so if used in their entirety. A "lone rogue state" or terrorist group that detonates a nuclear device wouldn't be launching it in an ICBM, because to leave the smoking gun trail back to the launch pad would spell certain death to the rogue state or group...a swift, glowing in the dark kind of retaliation.

A strong ballistic shield is a preventive measure that is independent of our ability to strike with nuclear warhead missiles...it merely gives a better chance of stopping an incoming missile attack, when a nuclear fist of God coming back at you defense is not an actual deterrent.

No offense man, but you didn't grow up during the Cold War, did you?

You can't prove a negative but MAD does seem to work, but only with states who don't really want to use them. But as soon as you get an actor who wants to use them....

There has been ~2,000 nuclear tests around the world since the 40s. These have been spread out over location and time, between above and underground explosions, and of varying strengths. Right now it is estimated that Russia has over 5,000 nuclear warheads, not including an additional 3,000 in the former Soviet states. Lets just say they use only half of those warheads. What do you think would happen to the US & the world if 2500 of the world's most powerful nuclear weapons hit the same place at the same time? Even if they were air blasts or just EMP blasts it would still cause a world wide economic depression.

I was born in 1977 so i lived through the last of it. Here is my whole point:

Is the US going to preemptively do a nuclear strike on someone? No
Would the US strike back with nuclear weapons if hit with a single weapon? No
Would the US strike back if hit with a large strike? What would be the point? The world is so screwed after that happens i say let them suffer a slow death instead of a quick one
Do we need a missile shield? Hell yes.
Do we need to worry about other delivery methods? Hell yes
Do we need to have a few nuclear weapons "just in case"? Yes, and make them some high tech variety that is next to impossible to stop so that if we had the need/desire to hit back then we can hit their capitol, key cities and their food belt.

[seraosha]

What do you think would happen if Russia nukes the US?
That is what we are talking about since nobody else right now has the ability to. First of all, it would be a large scale attack, enough so that it would prevent the US from striking back.

There is no way a pre-emptive strike from Russia or China would go undetected and wipe out all of the US silos...which is the only thing that would stop a full scale nuclear exchange from occurring. And the anti-ballistic shield, while it alone wouldn't stop all incoming attacks, would do a lot of good...how much remains to be seen (please God may it never be needed). Your belief that the US wouldn't strike back may or not be true...but I believe we would, and with a force that would annihilate the aggressor. But only 12 missiles left in reserve?
Not on a bet.

We are much more likely to see a nuclear device smuggled onto a cargo container ship and detonated in a port city then a "Day After" scenario.

[Rictor]

I would like to make the unpopular arguement that since all nations are equal under the law, the possession of nuclear weapons ought to either be banned altogether or allowed universally.

Of course, that's about as likely to happen as the moon is to fall out of the sky. Those who benefit from unequal laws never have any interest in amending them.

[seraosha]

Some countries are more equal than others.

duh.

I'd like to hear your compelling argument for a nuclear armed Rwanda.

[Dragonscript]

There is no way a pre-emptive strike from Russia or China would go undetected and wipe out all of the US silos...which is the only thing that would stop a full scale nuclear exchange from occurring. And the anti-ballistic shield, while it alone wouldn't stop all incoming attacks, would do a lot of good...how much remains to be seen (please God may it never be needed). Your belief that the US wouldn't strike back may or not be true...but I believe we would, and with a force that would annihilate the aggressor. But only 12 missiles left in reserve?
Not on a bet.

We are much more likely to see a nuclear device smuggled onto a cargo container ship and detonated in a port city then a "Day After" scenario.

If you don't like a dozen then how about a hundred. Just enough to say "**** you" after the fact. If it was too many then it would compound the environmental & economic impact of the whole event and it make it harder for the US to survive after.

I agree we are more likely to see a nuclear weapon smuggled in and then detonated than a missile strike simple because of the missile shield.

Rictor: What law? The only states that are not allowed to have nuclear weapons are the ones that voluntarily signed a treaty in exchange for other benefits. The "all or nothing" argument is too simple minded when it comes to world politics.

[seraosha]

I don't think that the surviving inhabitants of Nagasaki were that concerned with the economy, YMMV.

[Dragonscript]

I don't think that the surviving inhabitants of Nagasaki were that concerned with the economy, YMMV.

Not right away but within a few years they were. Plus Japan is a different issue, they had the US for help after the war. Who would the US have?

[seraosha]

You are pulling my leg, right?

What, "Red Dawn" occupation-style? We are so far offtopic at this time it's ridiculous. Make a new thread about how the US would rebuild after a nuclear attack, I'll meet you there.:)

[Mynameischarlie]

Having the ability to conduct a nuclear retaliation strike (US/UK/France/Russia/China/soon India) makes you a real big player, everything else is just showbiz (Pakistan/NKorea/Iran???/Syria???/???Isreal???).

[Dragonscript]

You are pulling my leg, right?

What, "Red Dawn" occupation-style? We are so far offtopic at this time it's ridiculous. Make a new thread about how the US would rebuild after a nuclear attack, I'll meet you there.:)

I don't mean an occupation, since neither Russia or China has the ability to do anything like that, just general technical and economical assistance, like the Marshall plan. I believe that any retaliation plan needs to take into account what the future would be like after the event.

Oh, i'll start another thread. Better bring your A game.

[xav]

Fallout 3!

[Mordoror]

what worries me the most is not an attack against USA or Russia or UE

the new members of the nuclear club have not accurate way of attacks and such a small amount of warhead that even if they can harm any of the big 5 ones, in retaliation they are sure to be transformed in a radioactive, flat and glowing green parking area
the bargain is not balanced here

what should be feared the most is a nuclear exchange between low nuke number high polpulation countries
here the MAD doctrine is not working correctly
example : a nuclear war between Pakistan and India
Pakis has 60 to 100 (up to 200 stated by somes) warheads both air dropped or missile carried
India has 100 to 150 (up to 250-300 stated by somes) missile carried and also air dropped as well and artillery (rocket) launched

given the fact that India has more that 1 billion 150 millions inhabitants the country can afford a small nuclear exchange with Pakistan (that still has 170 million inhabitants and can thus sustain a lower but significant nuclear exchange)

the same if you consider China, its one billion 300 millions inhabitnats and 160 to 400 nuclear warheads

in fact a nuclear exchange between China and India is possible because the Destruction in the MAD word is not ensured

[Mordoror]

just a study that illustrate what i was saying above :

The Consequences of Nuclear Conflict between India and Pakistan
NRDC's nuclear experts think about the unthinkable, using state-of-the-art nuclear war simulation software to assess the crisis in South Asia.


The months-long military standoff between India and Pakistan intensified several weeks ago when suspected Islamic militants killed more than 30 people at an Indian base in the disputed territory of Kashmir. As U.S. diplomatic pressure to avert war intensifies, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is going to India and Pakistan this week to discuss with his South Asian counterparts the results of a classified Pentagon study that concludes that a nuclear war between these countries could result in 12 million deaths........//..................


Link : http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/southasia.asp

[Baboonass]

Yes, Yes & Yes


O.k., genious, explain how you came to this conclusion.

[Dragonscript]

O.k., genious, explain how you came to this conclusion.


Originally Posted by Xav http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=3708006#post3708006)
Are nuclear weapons becoming easier to make as time goes by? Is there new technologies making it easier to access for smaller countries?

Or is it always going to be a tricky thing to develop no matter what?


They are not easier to make per say, but the know how to make them has become more widespread.

These smaller counties are getting their scientist trained in western countries, and they are very smart. Also, computers have become faster, smaller and cheaper, the availability of "dual use" technology and scientist and technicians who know how to make nuclear weapons selling their services to whoever is willing to pay.

Even with what i said above, it's no walk in the park making a nuclear weapon. There is testing, manufacturing and maintaining the weapons, and you need to have the delivery vehicle to hit what you want. Also, the fear that the US, or someone else, might do a quick strike on your building needs to be taken into account. Don't forget infighting and corruption: just within the power scheme gets control of the weapons and who pays for them and so on. Even within the US there were power plays to see who got control of these weapons.

[Baboonass]

They are not easier to make per say, but the know how to make them has become more widespread.

These smaller counties are getting their scientist trained in western countries, and they are very smart. Also, computers have become faster, smaller and cheaper, the availability of "dual use" technology and scientist and technicians who know how to make nuclear weapons selling their services to whoever is willing to pay.

Even with what i said above, it's no walk in the park making a nuclear weapon. There is testing, manufacturing and maintaining the weapons, and you need to have the delivery vehicle to hit what you want. Also, the fear that the US, or someone else, might do a quick strike on your building needs to be taken into account. Don't forget infighting and corruption: just within the power scheme gets control of the weapons and who pays for them and so on. Even within the US there were power plays to see who got control of these weapons.



You have absolutly no idea what you are talking about.

[Dragonscript]

You have absolutly no idea what you are talking about.

Maybe i do, maybe i don't, but either put up or shut up. Show me where i'm wrong. I wrong all the time about alot of things and i have no problem admitting that, but if all you can do is insult people without explaining why then you need to find a new day job. I'm a former Marine, you have to spell it out for me why i'm wrong.

[SilentType]

So if Pakistan or India say launch a nuclear missile can we be certain that such a launch will not be seen by Russia, China, the U.S. or any other nuclear power as an attack against it?

How protected are we from preventing a limited nuclear exchange from becoming WWIII?

[sujithkochi]

India has a nuclear policy of No first strike and it has not done any nuclear proliferation. Pls exclude India out of the rogue nations list.

It is responsible state & that was the reason why US was keen on signing the Nuclear deal with India

[Baboonass]

Maybe i do, maybe i don't, but either put up or shut up. Show me where i'm wrong. I wrong all the time about alot of things and i have no problem admitting that, but if all you can do is insult people without explaining why then you need to find a new day job. I'm a former Marine, you have to spell it out for me why i'm wrong.

Sheesh.......

You spout off a bunch crap and I have to expain myself to you?

I think not.

You are talking out of your ass, nice try, really.

Start here, look up gas diffusion centerfuge for starters. Uranuim enrichment.

Try atomic/nuclear weapons manufacturing/development.

The open source info should be enough.

Try doing a bit of research next time before typing.

[Bia]

I'd like to hear your compelling argument for a nuclear armed Rwanda.hehehehehehe

Excellent point.

Imagine Somalia with one... they'd set it off trying to break into it to sell it for scrap metal... or use it over a local honor killing.

[MichaelF]

Incidentally, folks, the "general nuclear exchange = the end of the world" scenario is largely a myth. The TTAPS study has been thoroughly discredited. The smoke from the fires (of the burning cities and forests) doesn't get lofted into the Stratosphere, so cooling is local (as in the 1991 Kuwaiti Oil Well Fires), not global.

Especially since the number of likely groundbursts is now much, much lower than was the case during the 70's and early 80's.

Certain places, like the UK (with hundreds of airbursts in a relatively confined area) are always going to be screwed when it comes to nukes. The CONUS (or Russia, for that matter), OTOH, has vast areas that will never see a nuke (to include the majority of medium/small urban areas).

The fallout effects, described by the TTAPS study, are not likely to impact* anyone not immediately in the downwind area (as the really nasty stuff settles out within a few minutes, and the majority of the not-so-nasty stuff is in the high atmosphere for weeks).

The real worry (other than for those folks who were in the blast radii, and thus are now without any worries at all) is a "nuclear autumn". A general nuclear exchange in the spring or early summer could shorten the proceeding growing season which, given the almost certain disruption in services, could cause mass starvation in areas dependant on food shipments (i.e. cities). The general cooling might also make northern latitudes totally untenable during the first Winter.

Note that: even in the standard (non-alarmist) scenarios, the population of the CONUS is likely to be <150Million by the end of the first Winter, post-laydown. The number of people who will have died from violence, disease, starvation and exposure will at least have equaled those killed by blast and radiation.

*-yes, a general exchange means global cancer rates go up, statistically. But we get the same effect from coal-fired power plants (which put a lot of Thorium and Uranium into the atmosphere).

[seraosha]

Maybe you missed this report done with 2007 modeling tech?
link (http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Egera/nwinter/nw6accepted.pdf)

A city fire would produce a large enough smoke column to hit the high atmosphere, which would produce the global cooling, vs the local cooling from the oil fires.

Folks that describe a scenario as "non-alarmist" that detail <150Million deaths scare me.

[MichaelF]

Maybe you missed this report done with 2007 modeling tech?
link (http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Egera/nwinter/nw6accepted.pdf)

The prevailing science is that the cooling would be regional, not global. The study you linked assumes that everything that is lofted persists in the Stratosphere, and somehow behaves differently than other carbon particulates of identical structure and chemistry that we have studied in volcanic and natural events.
The closest we've ever come to a "nuclear winter" was when Mt Tamboro let go in 1815, and it only dropped global temps by ~1.5C for less than a year. It put more particulate matter into the atmosphere (in the form of Carbon and Sulfur) than our combined nuclear arsenals could ever hope to, about 120Tg of Sulfur alone (more than the model you linked to posits).

Basically, that model and the other alarmist models, is directly contradicted by empiric evidence, not simply a competing model. We've seen events of that nature, and they don't behave like the alarmists say.

A city fire would produce a large enough smoke column to hit the high atmosphere, which would produce the global cooling, vs the local cooling from the oil fires.

Uh-uh. The smoke isn't going to hit the Stratosphere, or persist, which is what would be required for a global effect.

Folks that describe a scenario as "non-alarmist" that detail <150Million deaths scare me.

It is a realistic (versus alarmist) estimate. "Alarmist" is used to describe those who inject fiction or supposition into their models so as to achieve a political effect. IOW, saying that a nuclear exchange leads to total extinction for the human race. The real effects are much more complex.

BTW, I said that the estimate was of <150Million inhabitants of the CONUS, 12 months after the laydown. The death toll would be quite a bit larger (>150Million, at the moment). Most of whom would die before the next Spring due to the lack of services (power, water, food, medical care) and civil order, not the blasts or radiation. You could get the same effect in a political or economic breakdown.