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

Nuclear proliferation is a major threat

  1. Oct 22, 2004 #1
    join in a fight against nuclear weapons. as a weapons analyst i have years of experience in the feild of nuclear reseach. please join the cause
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 23, 2004 #2
    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
     
  4. Oct 24, 2004 #3
    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.
     
  5. Oct 24, 2004 #4

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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?
     
  6. Oct 24, 2004 #5
    The government, currently run by Bush, had an interest in going to Iraq and used WMDs as a reason to do so. I wont 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.
     
  7. Oct 25, 2004 #6
    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 .
     
  8. Oct 25, 2004 #7

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
  9. Oct 25, 2004 #8

    PerennialII

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  10. Oct 26, 2004 #9
    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 with out 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.
     
  11. Oct 26, 2004 #10

    PerennialII

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  12. Oct 26, 2004 #11

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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?
     
  13. Oct 26, 2004 #12
    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
     
  14. Oct 27, 2004 #13

    PerennialII

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yeah, and from many ends of the world it might as well look like the UN could sanction an attack on US .... :cry:
     
  15. Oct 27, 2004 #14

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    In just what way are the governmant and people of Iran "bad guys"?
     
  16. Oct 27, 2004 #15
    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 occured 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!
     
  17. Oct 27, 2004 #16
    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
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2004
  18. Oct 28, 2004 #17
    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.
     
  19. Oct 28, 2004 #18
    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.
     
  20. Oct 28, 2004 #19
    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
     
  21. Oct 28, 2004 #20
    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.

    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.

    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
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?