OT - every nuke test over time

[puckhead]

starts off slow, but it's quite stunning once it gets rolling.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Interesting, hower certain nations are more forthcoming than others about tests...especially underground tests.

I wonder how it looks post 1998.

 

[Comeds]

Mmmm radioactivity.....I am sure that 2000 bombs, some huge, in 50 years had no effect on the planet.

There was a really good documentary on the history channel a few years ago. It was basically declassified films of nuclear testing primarily in the South Pacific. Cleaned up and in HD it was pretty amazing stuff.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

This seems like a good spearhead for a discussion, and I really am as interested in Canadian opinion as much as American, if not more.

Right now 7 countries outwardly have nuclear weapons. Those countries are:

United States
England
France
China
Russia
India
Pakistan

We are pretty damn sure that another 4 have them as well:

North Korea
Israel
South Africa
Germany

There is some evidence that another 6 countries are pursuing nuclear weapons or may already have them:

Iran
Venezuela
Argentina
Saudi Arabia
Belarus
Ukraine

It is a common thought that total disarmerment would be the best solution to the nuclear weapon problem, but that involves a hell of a lot of trust in countries that have proven to be pretty damn untrustworthy. Much like the last two stockpiles of smallpox, every time the idea is put forth to destroy the materials, both sides end up punting on the issue.

What would be your view on the three western powers that have nuclear weapons taking the lead and setting up an agreement to disarm?

Would you, as an American, or you, as a Canadian (strong American ally) be comfortable with a disarmament agreement?
Would you trust the other side?
Would you trust Putin and Pakistan and India, even if they did sign an agreement?
What of rogue countries and loose nukes?

It is an interesting concept, and I have always wondered how people thought. It seems to me that the horse is out of the barn at this point, and even if we pray and hope to never have to use them, it is important that the Americans and Brits and French maintain the arms as a deterrent to others. If we could go back and un-invent the technology, that would be fantastic, but right now, the knowledge that the US et al. have the weapons and 1/2 of them are cruising around the ocean in undetectable subs may serve as a strong deterrent to aggression from the other side.

I really hope this does not blow up into a political, or anti-america/pro-america spitting contest. I am really just interested in a genuine meeting of the minds.

 

[sbb122]

I don't remember Simon being this hard when i used to play it...

 

[puckhead]

It seems to me that the horse is out of the barn at this point, and even if we pray and hope to never have to use them, it is important that the Americans and Brits and French maintain the arms as a deterrent to others. .

I tend to agree with this. It's not the nations that we KNOW have them, it's the ones that are trying to do it underground. At this point, you need a couple of super powers carrying big hammers to make sure someone doesn't do anything foolish.

As long as those super-powers aren't angry at each other.... but we've walked down that road, and presumably both sides have learned a lot on the way through.


as a side note, I found it interesting that England was the only nation to do all of their testing very far away from home.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

as a side note, I found it interesting that England was the only nation to do all of their testing very far away from home.

France did the same, using its old colonies

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I tend to agree with this. It's not the nations that we KNOW have them, it's the ones that are trying to do it underground. At this point, you need a couple of super powers carrying big hammers to make sure someone doesn't do anything foolish.

As long as those super-powers aren't angry at each other.... but we've walked down that road, and presumably both sides have learned a lot on the way through.


as a side note, I found it interesting that England was the only nation to do all of their testing very far away from home.

We don't like the southwest

 

[jstewismybastardson]

There is some evidence that another 6 countries are pursuing nuclear weapons or may already have them:

Iran
Venezuela
Argentina
Saudi Arabia
Belarus
Ukraine

this one sticks out to me ... what is the rationale of Argentina pursuing nuclear weaponry ?

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

this one sticks out to me ... what is the rationale of Argentina pursuing nuclear weaponry ?

They are one country that is interested in rivaling Brazil as a South American superpower but they tend much more toward the autocratic, despot anti-Nato/Western Alliance side. They are very close with Chavez in Venezuela and the Castro brothers but their country is much better off financially. They have recently been at a few of those "meetings" of the not so nice guy minds.

They had a weapons program back during the big nuclear movement of the 70s and 80s as a check to Brazil. brazil gave it up (supposedly) but most evidence shows that Argentina did not.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

They are one country that is interested in rivaling Brazil as a South American superpower but they tend much more toward the autocratic, despot anti-Nato/Western Alliance side. They are very close with Chavez in Venezuela and the Castro brothers but their country is much better off financially. They have recently been at a few of those "meetings" of the not so nice guy minds.

They had a weapons program back during the big nuclear movement of the 70s and 80s as a check to Brazil. brazil gave it up (supposedly) but most evidence shows that Argentina did not.

interesting ... thanks ... i thought they were still butt sore about the Falklands lol

 

[The Croz Man Cometh]

France did the same, using its old colonies

Don't you remember the start of Godzilla? (The one with Matthew Broderick)

 

[Darkstone42]

Only 2000? I thought there were more microwaves than that...



Oh, bombs. Right. Never mind.

 

[BOSSMANPC]

To borrow a line from the movie Sum of all Fears ....I'm not worried about the countries that have multiple nukes, what worries me is the rogue nut job that gets a hold of one.

This makes sense because if some nut job sets one off the other countries start staring each other down and where do we go from there?

Cool topic puckhead and nice post 46.

 

[Darkstone42]

In an ideal world, no one would have nukes. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world. It's pretty messed up, actually.

Nukes make me nervous. One rash decision, and we could have an apocalypse on our hands. The thing is, though, I agree with 46+2 that we need to hold onto ours, as should the other super powers, because it does lessen the odds of that one rash decision being made. But it still could be. And if we start flinging nukes all over the place, all of a sudden there's no one left to do the flinging or to be flung at. In fact, there's no one left to do anything.

No one will be left.

I don't like that idea. I'd like to think humans should be above eradicating themselves.

 

[SLY]

Really is a fucked up sitaution. Worries me when you have these religious extremists who can give two shits about dying. Every day it is something new with these fucktards. Hanging children, forcing them to step on bombs to test them... Fucking sick.

 

[Slimpikins]

Why the hell did the US let the Brits test their weapons in our country?

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I don't think a real solution will ever exist as long as the "haves" continue with their "do as I say, not as I do" mentality towards the "have nots."

As long as the "haves" continue to develop new nuclear weapons - as the US was believed to be around 2004 and Russia is believed to be doing still - despite a huge stockpile, the threats to the "have nots" are horribly hypocritical.

I'm OK with having your existing stockpile and to publicly acknowledge that the whole proliferation thing was a bad idea (and I believe that continued reduction is the right approach), which gives a country the moral high ground to some extent to criticize the "have nots."

 

[evolver115]

My response is in bold

It is a common thought that total disarmerment would be the best solution to the nuclear weapon problem, but that involves a hell of a lot of trust in countries that have proven to be pretty damn untrustworthy. Much like the last two stockpiles of smallpox, every time the idea is put forth to destroy the materials, both sides end up punting on the issue.

It would be the ideal solution, but that level of trust is almost impossible to imagine being real, as you pointed out.

I liken it to something like the Washington Naval Treaty, which was instituted to prevent an arms race. If countries with obvious rivalries to one another signed on to do this, I have no doubt the agreement would be modified as time went by, and eventually it would be discarded because that level of trust between nations just doesn't exist. Not for long stretches of time.

What would be your view on the three western powers that have nuclear weapons taking the lead and setting up an agreement to disarm?

It would be a step in the right direction, if this was real

Would you, as an American, or you, as a Canadian (strong American ally) be comfortable with a disarmament agreement?

No

Would you trust the other side?

No

Would you trust Putin and Pakistan and India, even if they did sign an agreement?

I would have a hard time trusting Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and China. And in particular, I believe Iran is the greatest threat of all the above mentioned.

What of rogue countries and loose nukes?

That is the new chapter on the debate of disarmament. Although, a country having its own supply of nuclear weapons does little to deter a would be terrorist. That is the scariest threat of them all, these days.