Brink of a nuclear detonation?

[BBKing]

in fact it cost them a hell of a lot of money

Gaddafi is a very canny chap sitting on a lake of oil, and realised that a bit of cash up front would pay great dividends when western companies were allowed back in, which is indeed what happened (plus WMDs cost a bit, so that's a few quid saved). That $2.7bn will look like money well spent in a few years when the oil industry's modernised and tourists are coming in.

Indeed, Libya's going great guns now, which goes to show that if you're going to have a dictator, have a competent one. And petrol's 16p a litre, too. I think the explanation is that he's motivated by personal glory (like most politicians), but has managed to link this to the economic development of his country rather than starting wars.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4730199.stm

There was never any urgency in requesting their oil, and no desire on our part to lift sanctions, which is why the negotiations were a bit one sided.

That link shows that there was a lot of desire on the part of US oil companies to lift sanctions and, since they run our foreign policy these days, that explains the bribery. Libya is also fully on-side against al-Qaeda and co., for the usual obvious reason - Arab nationalist dictators are dead scared of them.

It is of course noticeable that the lifting of sanctions on Libya wasn't related to any undertaking to improve human rights or introduce democracy. It's also noticeable that the disarmament and bringing of the country back into international society was achieved entirely by peaceful means such as sanctions, and without invading it or toppling the ruler.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3566545.stm

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by punky

The US only legally have nukes because the UN agreed it. It isn't a case that the US thinks its acceptable to have nukes, but the UN, and so various other countries obviously think so too.

Oh I understand the legal ramification, I'm talking about moral ones. The US has used nuclear weapons in anger, we have co-invaded a couple of countries lately, Isreal has invaded much of the Middle East since its inception, and of course is involved in much disputed borders with Palestine, both India and Pakistan have fought against each other over disputed land in Kashmir (and flexed their nuclear muscles against each other too not long ago).

But the UN is not the world police either (for the states that chose not to be full card-carrying members for sure).

Originally Posted by punky

The only country that has nukes that shouldn't is Israel, but if there is one country that needs nukes, it is Israel. It is by far and away the most hated country on earth, and hated by people who wouldn't hesitate to use a nuclear weapon.

That's all very well, but doesn't justify why Iran and North Korea shoud not have them too.

Originally Posted by punky

But if you really can't see the difference between Kim Jong Il and Dubya, then I feel for you. Maybe you should do some research before coming out with a statement like that. Dubya isn't mental, he's stupid. KJI is a bona fide lunatic. He's not just away with the fairies, he's on a different planet with them. If your happy have a psychopathic lunatic having nukes, but against a well-meaning, if a bit clumsy American having nukes, then I really do feel for you.

Please don't patronise, I'd rather have a sensible discussion. The problem is that you're judging both of these 'rogue' states by Western standards and the information that you're fed from Western sources - that doesn't mean you're right or they're right.

You've never been to Iran or North Korea (I assume) you don't know the people and you are not seeing the possible alternative viewpoint. I say possible, because you might be spot on when you say that both leaders are mad and would press the big red button without a second thought.

Alternatively, as Bush has all but sent a postcard to both Kim Jon-Il and Mamoud Ahmadinejad saying "you're next" they might want to try to deter such an invasion - and a nuclear arsenal is a deterent. Might I remind you that there is and has neen no clear or specific threat of any invasion, launch of attack or even (AFAIK) real evidence of state sponsored terrorism from either of these countries.

[punky]

Originally Posted by andygrif

That's all very well, but doesn't justify why Iran and North Korea shoud not have them too.

Precisely because there is an outside chance they'll use them, but a more greater chance that as a regime they won't be sensible enough to keep them out of the hands of terrorists.

Please don't patronise, I'd rather have a sensible discussion. The problem is that you're judging both of these 'rogue' states by Western standards and the information that you're fed from Western sources - that doesn't mean you're right or they're right.

You've never been to Iran or North Korea (I assume) you don't know the people and you are not seeing the possible alternative viewpoint. I say possible, because you might be spot on when you say that both leaders are mad and would press the big red button without a second thought.

Alternatively, as Bush has all but sent a postcard to both Kim Jon-Il and Mamoud Ahmadinejad saying "you're next" they might want to try to deter such an invasion - and a nuclear arsenal is a deterent. Might I remind you that there is and has neen no clear or specific threat of any invasion, launch of attack or even (AFAIK) real evidence of state sponsored terrorism from either of these countries.

For my part, I appologise for making you feel patronised. That wasn't my intention. I do see I probably could have worded it a bit more tactly.

NK doesn't have any terrorists because its citizens can't actually afford to be terrorists, they are that poor. Add to that the fact there are no US/western interests inside NK, and the fact that travel outside of NK is quite restricted, it makes terrorism against the US a bit tough.

With Iran I can tell you off the top of my head that they finance Hamas and various other recognised terrorist groups, like Hezbollah. God knows how many other links to terrorism there are that I don't know about, but I suspect they would be pretty easy to find.

It doesn't matter how you judge them - murder is murder, terrorism is terrorism, and if you want to have control over nuclear weapons, then state sponsered terrorism is unacceptable.

Also, the deterrent argument doesn't wash. The US/Europe only started taking an interest in Iran once it tried acquiring nuclear weapons, so Iran started this escalation - even after it was left very much alone, regretably for a long time, which lead to widespread human rights abuses. Decent countries around the world and the UN (which should be the world police officers, rather than standing by nonchalantly watching countries systematically perpetuate human rights abuses), should have taken interest in Iran a long time ago.

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by punky

Precisely because there is an outside chance they'll use them, but a more greater chance that as a regime they won't be sensible enough to keep them out of the hands of terrorists.

Sorry to keep on labouring this point, but says who? There is more than an outside chance of the US using it's nuclear weapons, as they have done so twice before, and there is a chance that other agreesors, such as the UK, India & Pakistan will too. Countries that have no real conflicts (yet) to speak of are not likely to use any sort of weapon.

Originally Posted by punky

For my part, I appologise for making you feel patronised. That wasn't my intention. I do see I probably could have worded it a bit more tactly.

No probs...thank you for saying that.

Originally Posted by punky

NK doesn't have any terrorists because its citizens can't actually afford to be terrorists, they are that poor. Add to that the fact there are no US/western interests inside NK, and the fact that travel outside of NK is quite restricted, it makes terrorism against the US a bit tough.

OK, so then as NK is on the receiving end of the US' threats of invasion - why would they not want to try to defend themselves? Whether we like NK's way of controlling its subjects or not it is not out job to say how a country is run - however distasteful it might be to us. But we surely don't the right to start threatening countries just becuase we don't like them do we?

Originally Posted by punky

With Iran I can tell you off the top of my head that they finance Hamas and various other recognised terrorist groups, like Hezbollah. God knows how many other links to terrorism there are that I don't know about, but I suspect they would be pretty easy to find.

Yes you're right, they have been linked to both of those and a couple of other too. But we only have the CIA's word that the state is sponsoring such attacks.

Originally Posted by punky

Also, the deterrent argument doesn't wash.

I think I'd beg to differ on this one - first off I think it is a deterent. I think it's exactly why the US hasn't taken it's War on Terror Roadshow to NK (that and the 6 million strong army). Any country invading NK would have to think very long and hard about the potential consequences of doing so. Invading Iraq was a stoll in the park compared to taking on a stable, co-ordinated and nuclear military - that would certainly deter me.

Second, we continue to hold a nuclear arsenal on the basis that it's a deterrent, and no-one invaded us lately.

[punky]

We'll have to agree to disagree on most of those points, as most relate to perception of threat, and who started what except for this one:

Yes you're right, they have been linked to both of those and a couple of other too. But we only have the CIA's word that the state is sponsoring such attacks.

Not Just the CIA:

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

Hamas is listed as a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, and Israel, as well as numerous human rights organizations, and its activities have been condemned by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and by Human Rights Watch in the past.

...

Hamas has an unknown number of hard-line members and tens of thousands of supporters and sympathizers. It receives funding from Palestinian expatriates, from the Islamist regime in Iran,

and:

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

It is regarded by most in the Arab and Muslim world as a legitimate, militant, Shia political party in Lebanon, and by the Israeli government and most Western governments as an Islamic fundamentalist, or Islamist, terrorist organization.

...

. The group is headed by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and is financed largely by Iran and Syria,

[Graham]

Originally Posted by punky

Also, the deterrent argument doesn't wash.

During the Korean War the US under McArthur had considered using nuclear weapons, but it was only the threat of the Russians, who supported the North Koreans, retaliating that stopped them.

The US/Europe only started taking an interest in Iran once it tried acquiring nuclear weapons, so Iran started this escalation - even after it was left very much alone, regretably for a long time, which lead to widespread human rights abuses. Decent countries around the world and the UN (which should be the world police officers, rather than standing by nonchalantly watching countries systematically perpetuate human rights abuses), should have taken interest in Iran a long time ago.

<cough> Saudi Arabia <cough>

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by punky

Not Just the CIA:

and:

You might be right...but there is no source for that information that Wikipedia quote. You see what I am getting at here?

It may all be 100% true, it may be that neither of these countries should hold a nuclear arsenal, it may be that they indeed on the "Axis of Evil" - but conversely, just becuase the UK and US governments say so, does not a fact make. If there is a good thing that has come out of the war in Iraq, it is that it should make us all question the information we are fed by our elected representatives with far more scrutiny.

I'm not saying you're right, I'm not saying I'm right - what I am saying is there is nowhere near enough information to make an informed decision either way...but as a poet once wrote...don't believe the hype!

[BBKing]

I'm 99% sure the world would be less safe if Iran had a viable nuclear weapons system (which includes a reliable delivery vehicle of course, capable of reaching a realistic potential target, Tel Aviv, Moscow or Riyadh perhaps).

I'm also 99% sure that the way to avoid this isn't by threatening Iran with an invasion which, if we were mad enough to carry it out, would result in the insurgency in Iraq multiplying 5-fold* plus reinforcing the 'US/Britain have declared war on Muslims' baloney that's unfortunately gaining wide acceptance in the Islamic world since, er, we started invading it repeatedly, plus costing an absolute fortune over and above the Iraq costs (go and look at the relative size of the land area of Iran and Iraq) plus stretching the US military beyond breaking point (since it's already demoralised and war-weary from Iraq, and no one else is going to join in this time).

So it's a threat that we can't possibly carry through, which is worse than no threat at all, since the Iranians will realise this and use it against us. Diplomacy is the only way, and Mr. Bush will have to put his sabre away, since everyone involved knows it's blunt.

*Many Shia parties in Iraq have strong links to Iran, and these parties enjoy wide support in Shia areas, which are 60% of the population. Add the 20% Sunni areas and you get 80% of the Iraqi population suddenly having a good reason to go off on one at the US and British forces.

[Matt D]

Originally Posted by punky

The US only legally have nukes because the UN agreed it. It isn't a case that the US thinks its acceptable to have nukes, but the UN, and so various other countries obviously think so too.

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (US, Russia, UK, France, China) are the only five countries allowed to possess nuclear weapons under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Although they don't have that permission due to their permanent status on the UNSC, but rather because they were the only declared nuclear-states at the time of the creation of the NPT in 1968.

The NPT does also state that the five "NWS" (Nuclear Weapon States) must aim to reduce, & ultimately completely remove, their stockpiles.

Plus it also says that any state can withdraw from the NPT, if they feel they are under sufficient threat. North Korea used this arguement.

Originally Posted by punky

The only country that has nukes that shouldn't is Israel, but if there is one country that needs nukes, it is Israel. It is by far and away the most hated country on earth, and hated by people who wouldn't hesitate to use a nuclear weapon.

Don't forget India & Pakistan. Both have nukes too, but really shouldn't do (imagine if a dispute over Kashmir got serious, or BBK's possible situation of Musharraf getting bumped off by AlQaeda/Taliban sympathetic forces in the Pakistani ISI etc.)

Then again, as India, Pakistan, & Israel have never signed the NPT, there strangely, & stupidly, isn't actually anything forbidding them from possessing nuclear weapons AFAIK.

North Korea...thought to have nukes...& worrying if it does, as KJI is allegedly an unstable & irrational leader as you say. But the deterrent argument does make sense, from their point of view...possess nukes = safe from US attack.

NK did sign, & ratify, the NPT. But they then later "unsigned" it.

Iran has signed the NPT. I'd be worried if they did develop nukes, but, again, you can see the deterrence apsect of it from their point of view.


Some interesting articles from wiki about the NPT etc..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uclear_weapons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...eration_Treaty

[Xaccers]

The other thing about Iran getting nukes is this increases the likelyhood of terrorists getting hold of nukes

[Maggy J]

I've no idea what to make of NK.It's a very strange regime..that has not been above kidnapping Japanese citizens and one South Korean film director.

But how much of a threat the regime really is..I'm not sure..I imagine that Japan is feeling acutely worried being as they are the ONLY country to have had nuclear weapons used on them in anger.NK comes across as the sort of yobby neighbour you want an ASBO for but can't quite find the evidence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/2327017.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...n-nkorea_x.htm


I think Iran is more of a worry especially now they have elected a more fundamentalist leader.Though how much is rhetoric and posturing rather than a positive rush to nuclear armament one won't be sure until they actually test a nuclear bomb.

[punky]

I thought India and Pakistan were allowed to have them.

That doesn't feel me with much confidence. Pakistan is allied to us and the US atm, but for how long?

[AndrewJ]

I hope that are not SERIOUSLY GOING TO DENTONATE A TEST NUKE??? :EEK: what about the enviroment it has hardly recovered from the testing of the 1960's!!!!!

[Anonymouse]

Originally Posted by Saxodriver

I hope that are not SERIOUSLY GOING TO DENTONATE A TEST NUKE??? :EEK: what about the enviroment it has hardly recovered from the testing of the 1960's!!!!!

The above-ground testing that did so much damage was banned in 1963 by the Moscow Treaty, which is still in force; detonating a thermonuclear device above ground was made illegal unless nuclear war had officially been declared - which, thankfully, hasn't happened despite a number of narrow squeaks (Korea, Cuba et al).

On the other hand, there is unfortunately no ban on underground tests, although it could be argued they do relatively little harm. But if India, Pakistan or anyone else detonates a test nuke anywhere on Earth, it will be detected - and they'll have to explain themselves to the Security Council. Somehow I doubt Dubya will take it lying down; after all, why do India and/or Pakistan need nukes? Who do they think is going to attack them? Us?

But I agree with one of the earlier posts, in that if any of these fundamentalist (with the emphasis on 'mental', since they're clearly nutters) terrorists obtain and use a nuke, it is inconceivable that any response will be other than nuclear. I mean, how can you not respond in kind? That's the trouble with nukes: they change all the rules (if, in truth, there are rules) of warfare. You can respond to conventional weapons in a variety of ways, e.g. send in the SAS, or use Stealth fighters and/or bombers, or just send in troops. But if your opponent is throwing nukes, your strategic options are reduced to one unless you want to appear weak - in which case they'll just use them again. And again.

Did someone suggest that NK might think having nukes will keep them safe from US attack? If so, you're forgetting something.

Namely, the B-2.

If terrorists do use a nuke, a single B-2 can deliver enough nukes to cause the terrorist's country to effectively cease to exist - without even entering their airspace and without ever being detected by them. They'll never even see it coming; the missions to Baghdad proved they haven't a hope in hell of stopping it. To stop it, they've got to be able to detect it by radar or IR - which of course they can't, as that's the whole point of Stealth. As B-2 missions are usually flown at night, they can't even see the damn thing. Safe from the US? Nuh-uh.

In a sense, Stealth has eliminated the deterrence aspect of nukes. To explain: when they were first developed, delivery systems were pretty much the same from one country to the next. It is possible, though difficult, to intercept ICBMs; it's equally possible to intercept aircraft, assuming more or less equal levels of technology. Thus we arrive at the concept of MAD, which has, until recently, been the true deterrent. But now that Stealth has entered the picture and only one country possesses the technology to any significant degree, that's a whole different ballgame. For anyone attempting to engage the US in a hot war, Mutual Destruction is no longer Assured, since at the moment it is at best extremely difficult to detect a B-2 and they can be deployed in 24 hours or less. Stealth therefore gives the US first strike capability - which is pretty much all you need to 'win' a nuclear war, by ensuring your enemy can no longer launch nukes...leaving aside the likelihood of escalation resulting from other countries picking sides.

So, knowing this as they surely must, will the terrorists even bother with nukes? Are they that crazy?

Let's hope not. Nukes have been used against civilians only twice, and that was once - or perhaps twice - too many. We've all seen the archive footage of the tests and the aftermath of Little Boy, I'm sure. No-one - no-one - wants to see anything like that ever again. Ever.

I hope...

[AndrewJ]

I may be of my mark but I have only seen the initial blast of the A-bomb I have never seen any other material do you know the source?