Nuclear proliferation is a major threat

[KonradKorzenowski]

join in a fight against nuclear weapons. as a weapons analyst i have years of experience in the field of nuclear reseach. please join the cause

 

[juju]

I agree. It is a major threat.

If not taken care of, every two-bit dictator, terrorist, crook and crazy will have access to nuclear weapons.

At that moment the world will long for the times of the cold war.

Also, if you believe diplomacy alone is the answer, you are nuts. There is two much greed, fear, and religious and ideological stupidity in the world for diplomacy to ever work. It is the "peace in our time" syndrome.

Only firm action taken immediately has a chance of success. And even this chance is small due to the "political correctness" of the leaders of those nations who can actually to something about it.

You cannot stop this trend with politically correct police or military actions either. Only a firm and intelligent use of force. along with cooperation and diplomacy will do the trick.

War may be hell, but nuclear war is hell to the nth power.

juju

 

[4newton]

If history is any predictor the world will do nothing about the control of nuclear weapons until some one uses one. You can see what is taking place in this country when Bush took action to prevent proliferation of WMD. There is a mindset that thinks blind peace is the answer. His ability to prevent proliferation has been hampered by the division in the country. If Iran or Korea saw that the world was united or even this country was united those countries would give up their nuclear ambition as did Libya. Putting you name on a piece of paper will do no good. It will most likely produce negative results and be used as support for blind peace.

 

[selfAdjoint]

You can see what is taking place in this country when Bush took action to prevent proliferation of WMD.

And what action was that? Iraq? Are you kidding? And what about not funding the effort to sequester the old USSR nuclear weapons that are now seeping into the gray market?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The government, currently run by Bush, had an interest in going to Iraq and used WMDs as a reason to do so. I won't comment on my opinions as to whether or not that was a good enough reason. At any rate, so far Bush has not gone after any other country in regards to nuclear or other massively destructive weopons even though there has been mention of countries such as Korea and possibly China still running nuclear weopons programs. In fact the Bush admin even decided to try lifting/revising the nuclear arms treaty stating that it was for the purpose of working on nuclear defense programs. I haven't heard what the outcome was on that. I should probably look it up.

 

[4newton]

It is easy to look at the world with a short vision of a few years or less and always take the easy way. I am surprised that the people on this forum or the so-called intellectuals do not have a longer view of the world. These are suppose to be the smarter of our society but seem to lack common sense.

There is a major problem in the Middle East of historic size. You have a whole region of the world that has been living in a society of the dark ages. They now have or will have the resources of the atomic age. They are faced with their total way of thought, life and religion being destroyed. Just as with all societies before the change is inevitable. They don’t know what to do about these changes. In fact there is nothing they can do about it.

In an attempt to forestall the change they think that terrorism is the solution. Being of limited education and global experience they have no long view of the world. What thought or mindset would think that by destroying two buildings and killing 3000 people would insolate you from the rest of the world.

What options does the world and the United States have. We have seen that the two lines of thought. They are stay out of the region and make a profit where you can or take action to provide a caretaker for these developing people.

If you stay out you are only postponing the day of conflict. On that day you will be facing total nuclear war. No one will avoid the conflict.

The US under Bush is trying to establish a presence in the area to stabilize the region and prevent a nuclear build up. Our dependence on oil is part of the plan to maintain a presence in the Middle East. We could in less than 7 years decrease the dependence on oil by 40 to 70 percent. Even a 5 percent decrease in our oil use would drive the oil price down to less than $17.00 a barrel.

Our move into Iraq is trying to accomplish many goals. The first is to show that actions like 911 have major consequences to the Middle East. Second is to establish a military presence in the area that is not at the whim of host countries. Third is to discourage nuclear ambition of other countries. Fourth is to raise the standard of living and make Iraq a showpiece for the region. With the resources of Iraq they could produce a Garden of Eden.

We had more reasons to go into Iraq than we did to declare war on Germany in world war 2. There are many more reasons I will bring up later .

 

[selfAdjoint]

I grant you some of your reasoning, but the Bush attack on Iraq, while it succeeded in deposing Saddam, has not brought any relief from the Islamic antagonism toward the west, in fact it has made it worse. And the vision of Iraq as the footprint or first step in our remaking the middle eat more to our liking is just a bad joke, given what has been going on in Iraq for the last six months and the attitudes of the Iraqis (preferring Shariah) before the January elections. We don't have our heads in the sand, but our options are a lot smaller than you seem to think.

 

[PerennialII]

The methods the current US admin have applied have done nothing but promote spreading of WMDs ... these things can only be solved on a neutral, international level, which will hopefully be the course of action the next admin will pursue.

 

[4newton]

PerennialII and selfAdjoint:

In your reply I see that you do not disagree with my assessment of the nature and source of the problem in the Middle East and you both seem to agree that we must stay engaged and take action to prevent nuclear conflict.

PerennialII:
I do not understand what a “neutral, international level” is. It would help if you could state any actions that can be taken, other then the present ones, that will change the condition that is leading to nuclear conflict. Who are you going to talk to or with at this “neutral, international level” that can make any changes in the present mindset of the people of the Middle East.

selfAdjoint:
You seem to indicate that there was some different action that we could of or can take now that would produce results by this time to resolve the problems or the cause of the problems in the Middle East. You also did not disagree with the goals I stated or that the actions that we have taken are not moving in the direction of those goals. It is not ours “in our remaking the middle eat more to our liking” the remaking is inevitable as history has shown us when two unequal cultures meet. The culture difference is not just the United States it is the Middle East and the whole world.

It is our job to try and prevent mass killing while the changes take place. This process will take more than 30 years. There will be more conflict because the leaders in the Middle East can not accept the inevitable changes and they look for an enemy that they can fight to stop the changes. It would be nice if the transition could have taken place over 50 or 100 years without our intervention. The threat of nuclear conflict does not allow us to just stand and wait. We therefore become this enemy they are looking for. As you have seen if we do take on the job there is no one else that will. What is worse is that countries like France and Germany not only will not help but also make the job more difficult. They do this for shortsighted personal reasons.

The division in this country that has been created may have made the success much more costly in terms of life, money, and years if Bush is elected and may be a total failure if Kerry is elected. After Kerry’s remarks he will be tested in every way if elected.

 

[PerennialII]

I do not understand what a “neutral, international level” is. It would help if you could state any actions that can be taken, other then the present ones, that will change the condition that is leading to nuclear conflict. Who are you going to talk to or with at this “neutral, international level” that can make any changes in the present mindset of the people of the Middle East.

You gave a partial answer to your question in the end of your reply ... I don't think US can accomplish the results that are required to stop spreading of WMDs alone ... but, if US truly pushes for international cooperation, it will get it. Some potential hazards like North-Korea can perhaps still be dealth with the current policies, but in order to place some sort of global safeguards cooperation is required for example to deal with the threat of WMDs in the former Soviet countries. I feel that if US tries to do this alone, at some point it will fail, but using the world wide desire to rid ourselves of WMDs will produce in my mind a workable long term solution. We have organizations like the IAEA and UN if supported and given the means they deserve can get the job done.

The current mindset in the Middle East is a result of decades of bad policies and is extremely difficult to solve, the war has not helped the issue of solving the fundamental problems, but those are a different matter altogether. Even in this case if the international community would for once be united, and not undermined by actions of individual rogues, countries like Iran would feel some serious heat.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Frankly I can't see any way forward for the US or the UN on this issue. Rather than argue at a high level, why don't we discuss the immediate issue of Iran and nuclear weapons. Iran has the capability to make them; their scientists are at least as good as those of Pakistan. They have the will to make them, and are defiant toward all the calls for restraint. There isn't anything the UN weapon, sanctions, can do to hurt them, and much that sanctions against Iran could do to hurt us. The US army is stretched to the breaking point in Afghanistan and Iraq, so how are we supposed to invade and reconstitute Iran? Europe and the developed countries of Asia are not likely to join us in such an adventure, since they see us as being as much a problem as the middle east. So what do you guys think we should do?

 

[juju]

Hi folks,

No one is going to get the terorists, the dictators, the religious crazies, or the just plain outlaws to give up WMDs or stop trafficking in WMD materials by diplomatic means. Not even if the entire civilized world was united. Sanctions and such just don't work. That was proven in Iraq. It is sure that reason and compassion will also not work with these types of people. It is suicide to think otherwise.

What's left.

1) Wait 'till it becomes so bad that there are no other options than nuclear. What then. nuke'em first?

2) Decide as the world did in WW II that concerted military action is necessary before it is too late. This will get you cries of imperialism, cries of human rights,cries of its not our business, and all the other pacifist and isolationist nonsense that allowed Hitler and Tojo to rise in the first place.

If we are not our brother's keeper (and I am not saying we are or we aren't, that way is fraught with danger), then we have at least an enlightened self-interest in intervening. The world waited too long in WW II, and it cost 60 million plus lives. The next time could be much worse.

I guess I am saying that massive, concerted military action is needed. And it can't be the kind of politically correct action that was seen in Vietnam and is being seen in Iraq.

If you don't take out the bad guys first, they will take you out eventually. That's the jungle of the current situation of humanity.

juju

 

[PerennialII]

If you don't take out the bad guys first, they will take you out eventually. That's the jungle of the current situation of humanity.

Yeah, and from many ends of the world it might as well look like the UN could sanction an attack on US ...

 

[selfAdjoint]

If you don't take out the bad guys first, they will take you out eventually. That's the jungle of the current situation of humanity.

In just what way are the governmant and people of Iran "bad guys"?

 

[Chris Whedon]

was watching a program on Parallel Universes last night and realized the theory was oe I actually consiodered during an LSD trip in 1968. It also occurred to me that the string theory was possibly incorrect in regards to P.Universes as they fit more neatly in concentric circles continually growing smaller inside one an other to a central point of origin...the beginning. Just a thought!

 

[juju]

Those who don't think Sadaam and his sons and the others like them in all areas of the world are the bad guys, then you are living in a dream world.

The UN is useless. The league of nations was in many ways responsible for WW II. The UN will be responsible for WW III, if allowed.

Everyone wants peace and freedom. Well it costs dude. Sometimes it costs big.

Just for your information, although I support the timing and actuality of the incursion into Iraq, the government really screwed up the operation. The planners should all be fired. If it was done properly we would be out by now. Same on a smaller scale with Afghanistan.

Also, lest you get the wrong idea, George Bush is a moronic idiot. The rest of his policies are imbecilic.

juju

 

[4newton]

There are very few “bad people” in the Middle East. The problems of the Middle East have nothing to do with anyone’s policy. This is a natural evolution of all societies. Histories of western civilization can be used to follow the progress of the Middle East. The only difference is that we did not have the weapons that are available today. If there were nukes at the time of the revolutionary war it would have been equivalent to the condition in the Middle East today.

It is amazing that our founding fathers understood the basic problems of an evolving population, education. They also had the advantage of a national religious belief that placed a value on life, religious freedom, property rights, and a respect for the right of others. Their religious belief also recognized that all power comes from God and not man. They accepted that the authority of even King George was derived from God and they were able to see that no man could rule and suppress his nature of power and greed and allow other men God’s intended freedom for all men.

The danger in our society today is that we are loosing the concept of education. Our schools are teaching only political correct thought. You will never hear what I have stated above in our public schools. The above statement is not a statement of religion. It is a statement of the history of the founding of this country. Even if and especially if you do not believe in a God you still need to be educated in the thought and structure that has made this country work.

The task in the Middle East is to keep the area stable, free of WMD’s, until they work out a stable society. The form of their society is not required to be the same that has worked for us but to be stable and long lasting it must have recognition of some authority above a man or a state. Not knowing the details of their religion or how it can be interpreted to provide a supreme authority I can not offer details. The fact that they have a religion could and should be used to this end. The total solution must be education. We need to support newspapers, books, radio, TV to this purpose. In other words we need a propaganda mill with the sole purpose of creating a stable government.

We will be there for as many years as it takes. You will find that no matter who is in power in Iraq they will find our presence useful to them.

If anyone can forget our power politics in this country and take a historical overview of what is going on in Iraq it is going better than anyone could expect. Are mistakes made, of course? Our greatest strength is that we are flexible in this operation. This nation building is new to everyone in the world. We are writing the book. This must be done to prevent a nuclear war. Just like anything else if you don’t have a constructive idea don’t make the problem worse with just plain gripping.

 

[ophecleide]

I hate reading really lengthy posts, so I'll try to keep this one brief.

1.No, our greatest strength is that we put ridiculous sums of money into our military and that everybody else is at least a little scared of us.

2.Unlike many of you, I do not feel that people are fundamentally bad (although I do think that conflict is natural).

3.Nuclear proliferation IS a big, big deal, but the US is being hypocritical by keeping so many ourselves and on some levels, even seeking to develope new ones appropriate for today's wars.

4.Iraq was not about preventing the spreading of nuclear weapons. Please tell me why you think it was.

5.The reason why you feel that we have to go out and kill bad guys before they kill us is because they are either thinking exactly the same thing you are, or thinking that you owe them something morally (as most of us felt after 9/11).

6.I have a hard time believing that the reason why the US government works is because the founding fathers had power flowing from God. You chould really explain that better (I'm curious).

7.The League of Nations/WWII to UN/WWIII analogy is weak, don't use it without further justification, please.

8. Do you really think that we need to force cultural change in the middle east? To a first order approximation, the attack on 9/11 was the same thing going the other way. How did you feel after that?

9.Anyway you cut it we are all just trying to justify our model of the world which differs primarily on what I said in point 2.

10. Before screaming 'war!', take a deep breath, and think about what you are doing from somebody else's point of view.

That wasn't as brief as I had hoped for, sorry.

 

[juju]

The problems of the Middle East have nothing to do with anyone’s policy. This is a natural evolution of all societies. Histories of western civilization can be used to follow the progress of the Middle East.

I essentially agree on this point. However, it is also dependent on the evolution of philosophical, religious, political, economic, environmental, etc. thought.

It is my opinion that the state of Islam in these areas is roughly equivalent to that of the evolution of Western ideas in about the 14th century.

You right. They must work out their own destiny. However, this working out can not come at the expense of world-wide or even regional-wide conflict.

The solutions have nothing to do with power politics. They have to do with survival and evolutionary imperatives.

juju

 

[juju]

4.Iraq was not about preventing the spreading of nuclear weapons. Please tell me why you think it was.

If you let people who have no qualms about gassing 10-100 thousand of their own people get large stores of WMDs, then they will eventually use them on others (possibly you) or supply them to those who would.

5.The reason why you feel that we have to go out and kill bad guys before they kill us is because they are either thinking exactly the same thing you are, or thinking that you owe them something morally (as most of us felt after 9/11).

You have to eliminate the threat, before it happens again. In fact the threat should have been eliminated by actions before 9/11. It's not moral or philosophical. It's necessary.

7.The League of Nations/WWII to UN/WWIII analogy is weak, don't use it without further justification, please.

If the nations of western Europe had confronted Hitler when he first started to re-arm and reclaim territory that was ceded after WW I, six million jews and fifty million plus others probably wouldn't have died as a result.

"Peace in our time" is not an option. It never was.

And don't tell me what analogies to use. Weak or not the analogy is valid.

juju

 

[selfAdjoint]

Those who don't think Sadaam and his sons and the others like them in all areas of the world are the bad guys, then you are living in a dream world.

I agree that these men, especially the sons, were as bad a set of monsters as the human race has produced. And I am very glad Saddam is overthrown and the evil sons killed. I thoroughly agree with you about the details of the Iraq war; the consquest was brilliant, the aftermath disgusting.

But not all Islamic countries, just by virtue of being Islamic, are comparable to the Hussain boys. You can't just demonize innocent people because it suits your policy.

 

[4newton]

4.Iraq was not about preventing the spreading of nuclear weapons. Please tell me why you think it was.

Iraq had the resources, the intention, and had taken the steps to develop nuclear weapons. In 1992 he had 2.5 pounds of weapons grade uranium. The weapons inspectors that were in there the first time knew nothing about his nuclear program until Saddum’s son in-law revealed it.

The resolutions and the sanctions of the UN were not being effective. In fact as we have discovered the UN was being paid off. The French, Germans, and Russia were also finding it more profitable not to enforce the sanctions. The total containment was starting to fall apart. The US was in a bind. There was only a small window of opportunity to act. In another six months you could not have gotten a resolution through the UN to stop him. There could have been a counter resolution denying our right to take action.
This was our chance to work inside of international law after that time we would have no support until a major negative event occurred.

I will keep this post short as I agree with you that they do seem to get to long.

I will respond to other questions next time.

 

[juju]

But not all Islamic countries, just by virtue of being Islamic, are comparable to the Hussain boys. You can't just demonize innocent people because it suits your policy.

I am not trying to demonize anyone. Just trying to look at the present situation.

In reading and hearing about Islam, it appears that it has a core of hatred and insanity that is driving the Islamic radicals today. This core is not only in one country.

It is the same type of thing that drove Christianity during the inquisition, and the Nazis of more present time.

One must be aware of this if any type of effective action is to be taken. It doesn't mean that all followers of Islam are evil. Most probably aren't. But they sure are brainwashed, or living in fear of their radical neighbors.

Also, radical Islam is not the only threat of its kind in the world. North Korea is an example of others.

As to my policies, I would love it if I could just be a free and peaceful person. However to ignore current necessities and keep my head in the sand would be tantamount to suicide.

juju

 

[4newton]

6.I have a hard time believing that the reason why the US government works is because the founding fathers had power flowing from God. You chould really explain that better (I'm curious).

The Founding Fathers did not claim they had power flowing from God. In fact the Founding Fathers declared they did not have that power. The Founding Fathers stated that all rights for all men are God given and that no man or government had the right to take them away. This is the remarkable difference. At that time all kings believed that all rights of the people came from God through them to the people as they saw fit to pass on.

The strength of our nation is that we, the majority of the people, hold these God given right above our government. The question then is, what is above the government. If you don’t believe in a God then for the stability of your society you must make these rights supreme by fact of reason. It is much easier if you do believe in God. You already have accepted a higher authority then man or any government and you accept a set of rules that respect those rights.

This same structure must be used for any government that expects to endure. If any government is based on man, a person, then it will last no longer then the person. If it is based on an economic theory then it will only last in good times. You can go through a whole list of governments and those that recognized more of the basic rights of man lasted the longest.

 

[ophecleide]

I had some password problems, so I was out for a while, but I'm back now.

First, I would like to point out that no WMD's or firm evidence of the production of WMD's have been found in Iraq. Just because Saddam wanted these weapons does not mean he had them or he was trying to get them. 4Newton pointed out that it was not in some countries' financial interest to invade Iraq, but failed to point out that it was in the US's financial interest to do so. Imagine that. Yes, there were some good reasons to make for a regime change, but the situation was not nearly so black and white as many try to make it out to be.

Second, the notion that belief in a God is necessary for someone to have moral standards makes me sick. At the core, who is the more virtuous person, the one who allows others to have basic rights because either they are afraid of consequences from God or believe that there were God given and therefore are to be respected, or the person who simply allows others to have the rights purely out of respect for their fellow humans?


"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad I feel bad, that is my religion"

-Abraham Lincoln

 

[Morbius]

I hate reading really lengthy posts, so I'll try to keep this one brief.

4.Iraq was not about preventing the spreading of nuclear weapons. Please tell me why you think it was.

ophecleide,

First - because Iraqi scientists knew how to design a nuclear weapon - they
came VERY close previous to the first Gulf War. Check out the scientific
journal "Physics Today" published by the American Institute of Physics -
the July 1992 edition. [The library of any university with a Physics
Department should have that journal] There is an article starting on
page 20 by Dr. David Kay - chief nuclear weapons inspector, and
Dr. Jay Davis, then Associate Director of Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory.

Or to quote from Dr. Kay's Senate testimony in January 2004:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KAY401A.html

"KAY: Yes. You have to realize, this was a country that had designed and
had gone through a decade-long nuclear program. They knew the secrets."

The only question was whether Iraq could get the material. Dr. Kay
also addressed this in his testimony. There is a "black market" in
nuclear weapons material because of the Soviet Union. [ We are
attempting to secure this material:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/Dunlop2.html

Or read the book "One Point Safe" by Andrew and Leslie Cockburn



You will find it most authoritative and well researched ]

However, there's weapons material out there. Dr. Kay was concerned
that Iraq could just buy the material it needed - in the words of his
opening statement -that "...a willing buyer would meet a willing seller".
In the Senate testimony, Senator Cornyn referred to this portion of
Dr. Kay's statement:

"CORNYN: You said something during your opening statement that
intrigues me, and something that I'm afraid may be overlooked in all of
this back and forth; and that has to do with proliferation.

You said that there was a risk of a willing seller meeting a willing buyer
of such weapons or weapon stockpiles, whether they be large, small or
programs, whether it's information that Iraqi scientists might be willing
to sell or work in cooperation with rogue organizations or even nations.

But do you consider that to have been a real risk in terms of Saddam's
activities and these programs -- the risk of proliferation?

KAY: Actually, I consider it a bigger risk. And that's why I paused on the
preceding questions. I consider that a bigger risk than the restart of his
programs being successful.

KAY: I think the way the society was going, and the number of willing
buyers in the market, that that probably was a risk that if we did avoid,
we barely avoided."

To reiterate Dr. Kay's final point above; in his testimony, Dr. Kay stated
that we "barely avoided" the risk of proliferation by Iraq.

To me, that speaks volumes!

I wonder why the news media failed to pick up on this point - they only
picked up Dr. Kay's comments about "we were all wrong" about chemical and biological weapons.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory

 

[ophecleide]

It's interesting that you (Morbius) only quote one person and tell me to read a book written by one other person. Whether they could acquire nuclear weapons or not, there still isn't any proof that they were. Moreover, the evidence compiled by the CIA suggests that the weapons program Saddam had before the first Gulf War was essentially destroyed (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/) and that he was not actively restoring the program or even had any actual plans to do so (although he did want to, had the intent to, and may have done so given the opportunity). Is this evidence enough to justify an invasion? Perhaps, but in my opinion, no. The point is that invasion would only be necessary if we knew that he did have WMDs or that he was actively producing them and we were unable to stop it without force.

I also need to point out to juju that "weak analogy" was supposed to be a nice way of saying "invalid analogy". You still have not shown why WWII politics can be applied today. I agree there are similarities, but similarities alone do not valididate an analogy.

Finally, juju just told me that because Saddam is a mean guy, the war in Iraq is about nuclear weapons. That's illogical.

 

[juju]

I also need to point out to juju that "weak analogy" was supposed to be a nice way of saying "invalid analogy". You still have not shown why WWII politics can be applied today. I agree there are similarities, but similarities alone do not valididate an analogy.

Similarities are what analogies are all about. But I won't belabor the point. If you want to remain blind, it's your choice.

Finally, juju just told me that because Saddam is a mean guy, the war in Iraq is about nuclear weapons. That's illogical.

I said because Saadam gassed 10-100 thousand of his own people, he wouldn't hesitate to use those WMDs we know he was intent on acquiring on us. Or give them to someone who would.

Open your eyes dude. "Peace in our time" doesn't cut it and never did.

juju

 

[xiphizr]

You're all blinded by your ideology, here is a fact, Saddam Hussein on national television called for suicide fighters to attack American interests on the first aniversary of 9/11. He was obviously placing himself as a key enemy in the war on terror.

Those who assert the war was about oil and other benefits, I've got news for you, oil is over $50 a barrell.

Without Weapons of Mass Destruction, the war is easily justified, Saddam Hussein is a terrorist, a terror enabler and he was planning on going to which country when he was caught in that rabbit hole?

Go read up on the increased border activity with that country before the war. We are talking trucks, mobile facilities, and the like -- not people.

 

[Morbius]

It's interesting that you (Morbius) only quote one person and tell me to read a book written by one other person. Whether they could acquire nuclear weapons or not, there still isn't any proof that they were. Moreover, the evidence compiled by the CIA suggests that the weapons program Saddam had before the first Gulf War was essentially destroyed (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/) and that he was not actively restoring the program or even had any actual plans to do so (although he did want to, had the intent to, and may have done so given the opportunity). Is this evidence enough to justify an invasion? Perhaps, but in my opinion, no. The point is that invasion would only be necessary if we knew that he did have WMDs or that he was actively producing them and we were unable to stop it without force..

ophecleide,

First, Dr. David Kay is not just "one person" - he was the LEADER of the
entire nuclear weapons inspection team [called UNSCOM after the first
Gulf War - later called the Iraq Study Group].

In essence, Dr. Kay is THE authority on the Iraqi nuclear weapons
program [ which is why HE's the one testifying to the Senate! ].

[By the way - the CIA is NOT the ultimate authority with respect to
assessment of nuclear weapons activities. That responsibility rests
with the Dept. of Energy which can call upon the expertise of the
scientists that designed the USA's nuclear weaponry. See:

http://www.llnl.gov/50science/threat.html

which describes LLNL activities in the area of National Security,
Arms Control and Intelligence (NAI).]

You state above that Iraq's nuclear weapons program was substantially
dismantled after the first Gulf War - it was Dr. Kay's group that did that!

However, now Dr. Kay has reservations as to the effectiveness of that
effort - and you say that every thing is OK because the program was
dismantled by Dr. Kay. ?

You state above that you believe an invasion would only be justified IF
the Iraqis actually had the weapon in their possession - fully assembled,
ready to use. [ I hope I've stated your position accurately ].

My question to you is - "What signal do you expect to see that tells you
that the Iraqis have a weapon ready to use?" Do you believe that they
will announce to the world that they have it? Do you conceed that they
might just use it without any warning - just like the USA did with the
Japanese at Hiroshima?

This was one of the points that President Bush raised in his speech to the
United Nations General Assembly before the war. He stated that the
first indication that Iraq had a nuclear weapon could very well be a
mushroom cloud over a US city.

Iraq is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iraq has
promised not to seek or pursue the development of nuclear weaponry.
I don't believe we have to wait for them to succeed at developing a
weapon - the mere act of pursuing nuclear weaponry is actionable -
because Iraq has foresworn any action in that area.

The real question here is how much latitude one gives a proliferant
country. You evidently feel that we have to wait for them to actually
develop the weapon - and then we can move when we catch them
"red-handed".

The problem I see - is that you are putting an AWFUL LOT of faith in our
ability to detect nuclear weapons activity. Might I also recommend to
you a video available from the History Channel called "Saddam's
Arsenal". You recall that the Israelis destroyed the Osirak reactor that
Iraq was going to use to manufacture Plutonium in the early 1980s. So
the world had good reason to suspect Iraq might be developing nuclear
weapons and to be wary. Hans Blix and the IAEA paid particular
attention to Iraq.

Hans Blix and the IAEA inspected Iraq all during the decade of the 1980s
and into the early 1990s. As the above mentioned video from the
History Channel states, Hans Blix and the IAEA gave Saddam and Iraq
an "...A+.." for compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

However, after the first Gulf War, as detailed in his Physics Today
article, Dr. David Kay and UNSCOM found a nuclear weapons program
that was on the verge of having a working nuclear weapon.

The IAEA and Hans Blix FAILED to detect Iraq's nuclear weapons program!
Over a DECADE of inspections by Hans Blix and the IAEA, and they
FAILED! That should tell you how difficult it is to detect such a
program - and how easy it would be to miss the activities of a would-be
proliferant.

The consequences of failing to detect a nuclear weapons program would
be catostrophic - exploding even a crude nuclear weapon in a city with
the population density of New York - and you are looking at the deaths
of a few million people - about a thousand times worse than 9/11.

Given the exceedingly cataclysmic consequences of a rogue nuclear
proliferant - and the problematic and unreliable nature of detecting
the proliferant's activity - I don't believe we have the luxury of waiting
until the proliferant has the ready to use nuclear weapon in their
possession. I think you have to be pro-active on this matter.

Recall the old maxim - "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory

 

[juju]

Hi All,

I think that the entire question boils down to this.

Was the future potential threat and its obvious consequences strong enough to justify preemptive action?

Some believe it was, some don't. That is the thrust of the conversation.

juju

 

[russ_watters]

Morbius - question for you: have you read "The Sum of All fears?" Essentiallly, the gist is that a well-funded/connected terrorist succeeds in a matter of a year or so, in re-engineering a lost Israeli tactical nuclear weapon into a functional h-bomb. Do you think such a scenario is possible?

 

[Morbius]

Morbius - question for you: have you read "The Sum of All fears?" Essentiallly, the gist is that a well-funded/connected terrorist succeeds in a matter of a year or so, in re-engineering a lost Israeli tactical nuclear weapon into a functional h-bomb. Do you think such a scenario is possible?

Russ,

NO - the engineering and physics of thermonuclear weapons is one of the
most complex scientific challenges. That's why Los Alamos and
Lawrence Livermore have always had the most powerful computers.

I read "Sum of All Fears" many years ago. I remember Clancy's
description of the components of the bomb. I kept wondering - "how is
this thing going to work?"

I'm glad he included the chapter "8 Shakes" [ if memory serves - 8 is the
number - maybe something else] which describes how the device works.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[russ_watters]

Russ,

NO - the engineering and physics of thermonuclear weapons is one of the
most complex scientific challenges. That's why Los Alamos and
Lawrence Livermore have always had the most powerful computers.

I read "Sum of All Fears" many years ago. I remember Clancy's
description of the components of the bomb. I kept wondering - "how is
this thing going to work?"

Good to know its not something that can be done quite so easily. He said in the forward or afterward that he made most of the details as accurate as he could, but purposely changed a few so it would be less correct (to salve his conscience).

I'm glad he included the chapter "8 Shakes" [ if memory serves - 8 is the
number - maybe something else] which describes how the device works.

That may be the neatest chapter in any book I've ever read - 10 pages describing events that happen in a few microseconds. No wonder his books are so long!

 

[Morbius]

Good to know its not something that can be done quite so easily.

Russ,

The problem with nuclear weapons and terrorists is not that they can
get their hands on, or re-engineer a thermonuclear weapon or H-Bomb.

The problem is that they may be able to get an A-Bomb.

The Iraqi scientists knew the secrets of the A-Bomb, as well as A.Q. Khan
of Pakistan - who evidently has been peddling these secrets around.

Additionally, there is a black market in nuclear material. The former
USSR "leaked" weapons grade materials after its collapse. A good book
on this is by Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, "One Point Safe":



If the USA doesn't do something to combat this [ we've started ], it won't
be a question of "if" we get hit with a nuclear weapon, but "when".

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist