When One Nuclear Weapon Is Far Too Many

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

When One Nuclear Weapon Is Far Too Many
posted with permission from http://sane-ramblings.blogspot.com/2009/09/when-one-nuclear-weapon-is-far-too-many.html

"Show us your nuclear weapon facility," the U.S. tells Iran. "Your actions to build a nuclear weapon threaten the world and it must stop immediately."

This from a nation with nearly 14,000 nuclear weapons and the missiles to fire them, in a heart beat destroying any enemy and potentially taking the world with it.

"We don't have any nuclear weapons," repeatedly replies Iran. And they have offered to allow United Nations officials to inspect their facilities.

But the U.S. demands "unfettered access" to Iranian facilities an unnamed Obama Administration official told the Los Angeles Times, in "U.S., allies to press Iran for free access to facility."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-obama27-2009sep27,0,2677915.story?track=rss >

To understand Iran's perspective, reverse the names in the title so it reads, "Iran, allies to press U.S. for free access to facility."

The U.S. government would call such a demand, outrageous and the Pentagon would never comply as a matter of "National Security." It's all top secret.

In any case, nuclear weapons are spreading everywhere. In addition to the U.S., Britain, China, France, Germany, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and Russia have them, as the arms race continues.

And ironically, if the Shah had stayed in power, Iran would have gotten them from the U.S. With time, any government or organization with the money to pay for it can have nuclear weapons, as North Korea just demonstrated.

This is a golden opportunity for the U.S. to stop this madness by ending the arms race as it destroys its own arsenal. Until the U.S. does, most others won't either.

If you think having first strike or retaliatory strike capability keeps you safe, picture a fanatic detonating a mini form of one of these devices.

It could be in an oil or chemical facility or in some other toxic tinder box that could compound the force of a nuclear explosion and level or poison a city.

To end the arms race you as an American must speak up. Otherwise those in power will continue the endless race for a "proper strategic deterrent." Your voice could make a difference if you have the courage and the will to use it.
http://sane-ramblings.blogspot.com

[ShortnFiery]

1. "unfettered access" = let more of our spies in Iran so we can foment even more unrest.

Just perhaps, if there's a true revolution, we (the USA) can put another one of our thugs in as good as the former Shah. :thumbsdown:

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

4. You make a great point. nt

[ShortnFiery]

6. I'd love to take credit but I've been reading Noam Chomsky.

Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project)

[Echo In Light]

2. Why do hate America?

[ShortnFiery]

3. Brazilian Acting President Wants Brazil to Build the A-bomb ! ! !

The USA's bravado is nuking up the planet. :(

http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/11249/1/

[triple point]

9. I've thought Brazil had some for years. They're not exactly tech neophytes...

:shrug:

[Rex]

5. We still police the world. Nothing has changed.

Well we did give back the Philippines, so I guess one thing has changed.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

7. From the NY Times "U.S. Is Seeking a Range of Sanctions Against Iran"

"U.S. Is Seeking a Range of Sanctions Against Iran"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/world/middleeast/28iran.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

[triple point]

8. If Iran DID have one or three nukes, what exactly is the fear they'd do with them?

Maybe I'm naive but I can't imagine any little country like that actually tossing a nuke onto another country.
(Obviously big countries like...oh, the USA might...since they/we already did...)
:shrug:

[Echo In Light]

11. We're to believe their govt will * immediately* end all of time, space and dimension

You know, just cuz.

[triple point]

12. Oh, that...yeah. Would put a damper on my ski trip plans.

Fer sure.

[gratuitous]

17. Uh, they could, I dunno, throw it across the border into Iraq?

Although they may have internalized the lessons of Iraq and North Korea. Both countries were threatened by a foreign bully. One did not have nuclear weapons, one did. One was invaded by that foreign bully and one wasn't.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation agreement.

They are free to pursue nuclear power so long as they agree to allow regular inspections of all facilities and make their nuclear program open to the world. That is a concept called transparency. It inspires trust.

Now, hiding an entire new nuclear facility is a gigantic violation of that agreement. It shows that their word is worth exactly dick. This concept is called lying. It inspires distrust.

Rather than hide what they are doing, and there by indicate they might be doing something worth hiding, they could simply have withdrawn from the treaty. Of course, that would mean their intentions are clear.

It is impossible to keep out spies. The US knew of this facility for a very long time according to reports. All this time that President Obama has been asking for open and honest negotiations, Iran has been lying through their teeth, and Obama knew it. Now we know it.

Please read "Obama hails historic resolution to rid world of nuclear weapons" as it concerns your comment about the US ridding the world of Nuclear weapons.

[Statistical]

13. US has ended the nuclear arms race.

We stopped building new nukes 2 decades ago (we have small facility to replace aging warheads with safer ones resistant to accidental detonation by fire, shock, or tampering).
We stopped testing them 3 decades ago.
We have been dismantling them for almost 4 decades now.

US nuclear arsenal peaked at 32,193 warheads in 1996.
US nuclear arsenal today is 2,700 operationally deployed warheads (2200 strategic & 500 tactical) with another 2,500 in reserve.

Obama and Russian leaders are looking to cut arsenal down to about 3,000 warheads of which 2000 are deployed. The arsenal has shrunk under every single President (Reagan included) since Johnson. Even Jr cut the arsenal 50% in his 8 years. The stockpiled warheads will likely become nuclear fuel after the Russian dismantled cores we purchased runs out in 2012-2013. Yup our nuclear reactors have been running on fuel made from dismantled Russian weapons for last decade or so.

I am not sure if the author is unaware of this or simply ignored it because it doesn't fit the meme.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

14. The author responds to your comment...

As for the comment claiming the U.S. is reducing its nuclear armament and has been for a long time, this person may not be aware of the Pentagon's push to build new, more modern weapons.

And if in fact there has been a significant reduction in nuclear weapons by the U.S., a lack of transparency even to its own people would make it hard to verify.

So if a lack of transparency is what Iran is allegedly guilty of, they have a standout role model in the Pentagon.

---------------------------------

My comment: As Ted Turner stated, the only useful purpose for any of these weapons are as museum pieces, so that people 100 years from now can get down on their knees and thank God no one was stupid enough back in the 20th/21st century to use any of them.

[Echo In Light]

15. Didn't Bush withdraw from the '72 anti-ballistic missile treaty?

And, as you point out, the want of the previous admin re "bunker buster" nukes.

[Statistical]

16. Once again not true.

The US arsenal peaked over 40 years ago.
The US has developed no nuclear weapon designs in 30 years.
The US has dismantled 90% of the arsenal.

The US HAS (as I already pointed out) been building a small number (about 10 per year) of SAFER WARHEADS to replace the oldest warheads.
The DOD has requested permission to build a new facility that could replace 50-80 warheads per year.

I support both of these programs.

New nuclear warheads incorporate numerous safety designs. They use explosives that are resistant to both fire and shock to prevent accidental detonation. They have hollow cores that are filled with inert substance when disarmed so even an accidental detonation will not go critical. Newer warheads have multiple redundant arming safeties to prevent detonation by force or sabotage. They also use weak-link, strong-link bridges to ensure that if weapon is crushed or dropped it will not detonate. The components are also designed to remain reliable and not become unstable, brittle, or volatile even after decades of non-use.

Older nuclear warheads have limited safety features and often use explosives that are nor heat, or shock resistant. This provides multiple failure points. The warhead could detonate by fire, pressure, or shock. The warhead if stolen could also be forced to detonate manually by bypassing the arming mechanism and attempting to detonate the explosives that implode the core. Neither of these situations likely will result in a thermo-nuclear detonation but they would result in a "dirty bomb" scenario where partial fission occurs and radioactive material is spread over miles.

So it depends on what you mean by "modern weapons". The new warheads are no more powerful than the ones they replace. There also has been no new delivery systems. We are simply replacing warheads that are over 40 years old with ones that are far more safer. This is a program I support expanding. Currently with capability of only 10 warheads per year it will take decades to replace even are smaller active arsenal.