Nuclear Arsenal - Big waste of Billions ?

All the time weapons are being designed to be better more efficient killing machines. Yet more than half of them will probaly never be used, namely our nuclear arsenal. In retrospect, it seems completely logical that once a weapon is invented, it will be used. That is hardly the case.

In all our blindness of this era (late twentienth - early twenty first) we regard our most destructive weapons as walls of protection. Hence the massive buildup of the the nuclear arsenal mainly during the 'Cold War'. Whoever had the largest arsenal as the "one".

Supposedly these "walls" are, the sheer horror or Armagedon is seen as a detterent no sane society would risk. The societies of the world are rational, composed, and aware but certainly note "sane". Just look at North Korea, is that sanity ?

Anyways, at the present moment and for a long time it doesnt seem as if we will ever have to use any part of this extradinare arsenal. So it seems it has turned out to be the biggest waste of money this country (or any other ) has ever made. The way I see it, if you plan to spend so much on these weapons at least have the intention of using them. And Not for some facade wall of protection.

All the time weapons are being designed to be better more efficient killing machines. Yet more than half of them will probaly never be used, namely our nuclear arsenal.
The way I see it, if you plan to spend so much on these weapons at least have the intention of using them.

Words (almost) fail me...someone please tell me this is a joke...I am a very fragile man right now...

Well, it's certainly a waste of money now when the risk of Russian attack is no longer real, but whaddayagonnado? Sell them to another country? Anyway, it's not a complete waste. It still serves to protect America to a large extent and to preserve its status as the most powerful state in the world. As for using them... who the hell on then? It's a weapon of insanity, to be used only at an insane time...

All the time weapons are being designed to be better more efficient killing machines. Yet more than half of them will probaly never be used, namely our nuclear arsenal. In retrospect, it seems completely logical that once a weapon is invented, it will be used. That is hardly the case.

In all our blindness of this era (late twentienth - early twenty first) we regard our most destructive weapons as walls of protection. Hence the massive buildup of the the nuclear arsenal mainly during the 'Cold War'. Whoever had the largest arsenal as the "one".

Supposedly these "walls" are, the sheer horror or Armagedon is seen as a detterent no sane society would risk. The societies of the world are rational, composed, and aware but certainly note "sane". Just look at North Korea, is that sanity ?

Anyways, at the present moment and for a long time it doesnt seem as if we will ever have to use any part of this extradinare arsenal. So it seems it has turned out to be the biggest waste of money this country (or any other ) has ever made. The way I see it, if you plan to spend so much on these weapons at least have the intention of using them. And Not for some facade wall of protection.

so you're basically telling the US government or any other government that has nuclear weapons to use them immediately??? :eek: wtf

no i think he is telling that. we should stop building them. and get rid (dismantel) alot of them (or mabey all)

lol, just because there is no more USSR to aim missiles at, there are other nuclear powers.

Look at big bad China. Lots of people, mouths to feed, and communist. They are a nuclear power too, aren't they?

North Korea is small beans with a few nukes that possibly could make it to the west coast USA. I doubt the ability to do so, not sure their intercontinental ballistic missiles have ever been tested, have they?

No, China is the main reason to keep them now. Maybe Iran.

I have kids and as a parent, I would actively work to impeach any President that tried to get rid totally the arsenal that we have as deterrent.

-WC-

PS: To the original poster, think: Cops don't wear guns with the thought that they must use up all their bullets, do they? Peace through Strength, or however Ronald Reagan worded it.

China is not a "serious" threat to the U.S, considering we are their largest trading partner. I can look at the back of almost anything in my house and see that it was 'Made in China'. This makes money for both the U.S and China (lots of it). I dont think they wanna screw that up anytime soon. And yes they are a nuclear power, third largest stockpile after Russia.

What does Comminist make them "evil" or something ?

so you're basically telling the US government or any other government that has nuclear weapons to use them immediately??? wtf

Im not saying that at all.

The point Im trying to make is that every weapon that is/was ever designed, was designed with the intentuion of using them at some point in time. Yet amazingly (besides the first 2) none of these weapons have been used. Its just a huge waste of money.

Cops don't wear guns with the thought that they must use up all their bullets, do they? Peace through Strength, or however Ronald Reagan worded it.

Interesting analogy, comparing the US to a policeman. I believe a better analogy would be a civilian carrying around a gun in case someone else draws a gun and starts shooting. Both of them are equally guilty of shooting, no matter who shot first. If anyone is a police officer, it would be the UN, and if anyone should have nukes, it would be they.

A friendly reminder, the US has already made the first shots, they already have blood on their hands. Do you want to make a murderer a policeman and give him a gun?

Mr U

HU, I'll agree that a better analogy would be of a civilian carrying around a gun, but I definitely don't agree that he would be as guilty as the criminal he stops. If a regular civilian didn't have a gun to protect himself (because the police holds all of them), then what is he supposed to do when he is attacked? Wait until he is dead and his family calls the police?
Many Israeli citizens carry around guns and it is because of this fact that some terrorist attacks have been stopped and innocent lives saved. Of course it would be more ideal if the army, or if you want, the UN, would deal with these terrorists, but the fact remains, if these civilians didn't have guns on them then more innocent people would have been dead today. These guns saved lives. It's not a matter of who shoots first, but a matter of what intention the shooter has, and who the victims are.

On the same token, Helios, you can consider those billions of dollars well spent if they deterred the Russians from dropping a nuclear bomb on Americans. A weapon's effectiveness can be measured not only by how much it destroys and kills, but also by how many lives it saves.

Is it true that nuclear weapons were invented before nuclear energy (as an outsource of energy by way of nuclear plants)? I do agree with our having them, but part of me disagrees, especially when I see who happens to be in charge of America right now. It would be effective if we were not only strong, but also the moral leader in the world, and could do away with all of the nuclear and biological weapons that we have ever sold to other countries. It would be nice to get out there and spread some technological advancements in agriculture to feed the world's population, some of which are currently starving because the normal way of growing crops is not meeting the need like advanced crop yeilds could. Also, let's spread some water filtration/cleaning technology. Our reasons (any nation's reasons) for having these weapons of mass destruction are fear based, not made out of puppies and love and good intentions. I do believe in having the power if you are the moral leader and chose to use it in defense only, not offense to control land that benefits us and leads to corruption and hatred of us by the countries we are occupying.

Let's say Sadam Hussein had "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Let's say he possesed two nukes and launched them at the US, and bombed the heck out of NYC.

What would the US do with their nukes? Launch them at Iraq? I mean, wtf?

Fear-based weapons? Wtf?

Not to be unfriendly or anything, but generally, genocide is against the law. Now, Sadam Hussein might not hold himself to this law (in this hypothetical situation), but does that mean Bush should violate it as well? Should Bush murder 300 000 Iraqis in cold revenge?

Now, if I were at the head of Iraq, and if I hated president Bush, I'd fire those darn missiles. I can not believe that the president of the United States would ever in cold revenge launch a nuclear strike that would condemn the lives of so many people to death because they failed to stop a dictator that the United States of America put there.
You see, this was the situation before the US invaded Iraq. There was a chance that Sadam had weapons and that he could launch them. This is just speaking of nuclear arms of course. The US, of course, has the whole bunch of them, biological and chemical. Are they fear-based as well? Do you need diseases with the potential to kill 12 million to strike the fear into the hearts of your enemy. Is that how the Nation that believes itself to stand for Peace and Freedom acts towards the world.

Sounds more like some bully who worked out to much in the gym asking everyone for their lunch money. How is that for an analogy?

Oh, and honestly, how can any country ask for N-Korea to stop it's nuclear weapons program if the US itself has so many of them? Another analogy here: A person shot two people a while back, and has since reloaded and added a bigger clip. He is now asking you, another civilian to disarm yourself, while he has his gun pointed at you, so you are fearful of what might happen if you don't listen.
Where is the UN in here? Well, they are eating Donuts in the local Waffles Shop, where they are doing jack-shit because the US is telling them to.

Mr U

HU, you're bringing up a lot of topics here. What the US does may be questionable, but it's not what we're discussing. We're talking about the concept of holding WMDs in order to deter other countries from attacking you.
Lets forget America for the time being. It's not really under serious risk from anyone. There's a small country in the Middle East called Israel, which has been under attack from its neighbours since the day it was born. As the years went by, Israel won more wars more spectacularly and became a more powerful country and a few years ago, had reached a status where none of its enemies would dare to declare all-out war on them. The power of deterrance is the story of our history. You may also be aware of the fact that Israel is considered a nuclear superpower. Why, would you think, did countries like pre-war Iraq with declared intentions of destroying Israel and weapons of mass destruction not attack Israel, if not for the fear of retaliation?
If Iraq had used WMDs on Israel then Israel would have struck back, killing hundereds of thousands of Iraqi civilian or probably more in order to assure that an attack like that on Israel never happens again. Not very fun to think about, but the fact that this is well known is the only reason that Israel exists today. It's nice to believe that you have the moral high ground, but when you have to defend your country you can and must do everything to survive.
You call it "cold revenge", but that has nothing to do with it. It's got everything to do with deterrence and self-defense.

If being alive means hundreds of thousands have to die for me to live, I'd rather be dead.

Mr U

Yeah, well countries with that mentality don't exist, for the obvious reason, so whaddayagonnado?

Anyhow, in the end you'll be saving more citizens of your country than you'll be killing on the other side. If you don't respond, your country could be a victim of a nuclear holocaust...

Anyhow, in the end you'll be saving more citizens of your country than you'll be killing on the other side. If you don't respond, your country could be a victim of a nuclear holocaust...

That's nonsense. If you have two identical nations, and both nuke each other, both will suffer equal losses. The only thing that can possible change the victim count is the density of a population, and if that's the only justification to have WMD's, I'd say you aren't defending your point very well :p.

Mr U

I don't know what you're talking about with the density of population but what I meant to say was that if a country was attacked with nuclear weapons and didn't respond then it would probably be attacked with more and more nukes until it is utterly destroyed, and even if this one particular country decided to stop after one nuke it would become well known that the nuked country can be nuked freely and it would only be a matter of time until it is destroyed...

As I said, fact is Saddam hadn't attacked Israel. I ask again, why wouldn't he if not for fear of being attacked back? Because of the WMDs Israel has less Iraqis and less Israelis are dead than would have been if Israel didn't hold them. If Iraq had attacked, then Israel's response would have guranteed less Israeli deaths and deaths for its enemies than would be left by not attacking. It's all in the deterrance.

The nuclear warhead count was cut down after the cold war. but There are other things than Nuclear War heads one has to worry about.

The nuclear warhead count was cut down after the cold war. but There are other things than Nuclear War heads one has to worry about.

Such as? Personally, I'm a little worried about things with the potential to devastate entire cities...
I agree that Biological and Chemical warfare should not be underestimated but on most news announcements they speak of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not just Nuclear Warheads.

Oh, and if you are wondering, the US does not need that much warheads anymore. The power they hold now is much greater than before because the bombs have improved. It's like turning a gun into a machinegun. Suddenly you need less people and less guns to kill an equal amount of people.

Mr U