Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Bush's Nuclear War

  1. Oct 15, 2004 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    - John Kerry; The Coral Gables debate.

    The accusation was was made twice but never denied.

    So, aside from the obvious new cold-war-pork for the cold war buddies of Bush senior, what is the purpose of such as weapon?

    Obviously we can use existing nuclear weapons to attack a bunker. Even the National Command Center under the Rocky Mountains is vulnerable to direct hits. So why don't we use nuclear weapons to get the Saddams of the world? The answer is obvious: We don't want the lid to Pandora's Box opened. Once it is it may never be shut. We all know the post nuclear war scenarios.

    Bush doesn't want Bunker-Busting Nuclear Weapons because we don't have weapons to do the job, he wants to make nuclear weapons that will really be used. Bush wants the weapons for a tactical nuclear war - a war that can allegedly be fought with acceptable devestation, and planet-wide contamination.

    He has already begun the new age of nuclear war; and we will pay, and pay, and pay. Three cheers for deficit spending!

    Thanks Mr. Bush!
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 16, 2004 #2

    The optimistic approach: Maybe the 'spending' is more important than the 'use'.

    The mindboogling question ... what did he meant: "See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."

    Remarks by the (s)elected President of the United States of America, holder of most WMD's in the world - October 3, 2003 - Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
  4. Oct 16, 2004 #3
    pelastration, I remember Bush saying that! I didn't catch it the first time around but now when I read the quote you posted I'm laughing my butt off. I have been unsure who to vote against this election, but now I think I'll vote against Bush. His intentions seem to be to enhance U.S.A. to become even more of a superpower. How can anyone argue that Bush seeking new types of nukes is not a ridiculous hypocritical double-standard?
  5. Oct 16, 2004 #4
    Bush may be escalating global nuclear tensions, but I hear John Kerry is kinda wishy-washy on some issues...

    I can see why this will be such a close race.
  6. Oct 17, 2004 #5
    Why is Nuclear weapons in North Korea and Iran and Iraq such a concern after all there are many countries including, Britain , France , India, China, Pakistan, Israel, Russia and the USA that possess nuclear weapons so why is Saddam and Iran and NK owning WMD such a big issue?
    Isnt this a double standard by USA?
  7. Oct 17, 2004 #6
    Has it occurred to anyone, that bunker busting weapons might be developed to scare off certain parties that currently use bunkers or plan to use them for whatever dirty (nuclear) programs.
    I think its just a step in the game of deterrence. Unless a country like Iran really is on the virge of getting its first nuke, i dont see them being used.

    Does anyone believe there are no scenarios where these weapons should be used?
  8. Oct 17, 2004 #7
    This is the reason liberals irk me so much. Why is it a big issue for Saddam, NK, or Iran to have a NUke?


    Its that simple.


    Its our security we care about, not anyone else's. Its our money we care about not anyone else's. You're either with us, or against us. You see life isn't about being fair, its not about your hippie utopia and world peace, ITS ABOUT BEING SAFE. If a country like NK gets nuclear weapons, then they have a much more level military field with us. This means that we are more vulnerable to their demands.

    For the more dense liberals i'll give you a little more historical spiel:

    The North Koreans want to reunite North Korea. The division between the two countries is entirely arbitrary, based upon a UN decision, and enforced by the US. Why? Because our government hated communists, and by the time communism was no longer a global threat, we had a "commitment," if we pull out then we demonstrate to other allies we might not protect them, losing their support. Consequence: NK hates us. They want to control all of Korea. To do this they must be able to force us to back down in military confrontation, not necessarily defeat us, but just make us concede. Easiest way: Nukes. If they get nukes, we can no longer protect South Korea, not any better than we could protect South Vietnam, because the enemy wants it more than we do. Then say they force a reunification of the two Koreas in, fifteen, or twenty years, because they got nukes, and could effectively threaten us enough that the cost of defending South Korea would have been too great to bear. Then we are at the point of being held hostage and dictated too by other nations whose interests conflict with our own. This position is not beneficial to us and must be avoided. The easiest way to avoid this?


    This of course means, no nukes for them, and lots for us. Its not that we believe WMDs are evil (though one can definitely make that case). Its that we want the military advantage in all situations, so that whenever one of our hippie annoyances is threatened, we can insure he doesn't get Fatboy dropped on hisself.

    Edit: Just for reference i really despise Bush, and am glad i cannot vote in this election, i couldn't sleep at night knowing i aided either one of those...people....into the White House.
  9. Oct 17, 2004 #8
    1. Does Iran has the right to control it's own energy cycle? Yes.

    2. Does Iran has the right to develop it's own weapon cycle? Yes. I don't like that ... but they have the right to develop the same kind of weapons Israel has.

    3. Quote from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17sun1.html

    The international outrage over the American invasion is now joined by a sense of disdain for the incompetence of the effort. Moderate Arab leaders who have attempted to introduce a modicum of democracy are tainted by their connection to an administration that is now radioactive in the Muslim world.

    Heads of rogue states, including Iran and North Korea, have been taught decisively that the best protection against a pre-emptive American strike is to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  10. Oct 17, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    But, what about the Iranians, or the Iraqis? How will they feel with the United States taking away their nuclear foundation? They will feel exactly towards us like we do towards them - a threat. This is why you let a soverign (hence soverign) country develop own its own.

    Is it ethical to deny a country what it desires just because *you* see it as a threat? The US has nuclear weapons and to the Iraqis and Iranians, we might use it on them. This is a lot more than politics - it's about ethics.

    The United States is a superpower and has been for a long time. It's time to start thinking about our effects on other political powers.
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2004
  11. Oct 17, 2004 #10
    The ethics of protecting you? Okay we'll give that up.

    Here you go Iran.

    *hands over nukes*
  12. Oct 17, 2004 #11
    Not if that weapons cycle is in violation of treaties it has signed.
    Israel has NOT signed the NPT, and Iran HAS.

    Following your line of rhetorical questioning:

    Do sovereign nations have the right to respond to other sovereign nations in a manner they see fit, and in response also receive all reprocussions from those responses??? YES. N Korea has left the NPT, and in response we, and all other nations, can do whatever we please. It's all a high stakes gamble, but that is the reality of the situation.
    International rights are derived and dictated by the UN security council, and at an individual level by military might. Iran has as many rights as the rest of us allow her, just as Israel does. Binding agreements like the NPT are a bargaining chips against larger countries' responses to smaller countries' actions.

    And before I get my ass chewed on this. I'm not saying this is right or wrong. Just stating the reality of it all
  13. Oct 17, 2004 #12
    Morality, and ethics, are relative. So yes, it is ethical because of the point of view of the author.

    Yes, I'm SURE the Iraqis are really worried about us nuking them :rolleyes:

    Besides all this though, I find it laughable, and at the same time sad, to see that you believe populous' under a democracy and a dictatorship view foreign threats the same.
    Do I worry about a democracy nuking us?? nope. Do I worry about N Korea nuking us or our allies?yes. The reason? Accountability from a populous, not just the ability to do so.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook