Prominent U.S. Physicists Send Letter to President Bush

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter scott1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physicists
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a letter from prominent U.S. physicists to President Bush, expressing concerns about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran. Participants explore the implications of such actions, the geopolitical context, and the appropriateness of nuclear threats in international relations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the letter's authors view the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran as "gravely irresponsible" and warn of disastrous consequences.
  • Others suggest that discussions of nuclear strikes are primarily sensationalist and not taken seriously by military strategists, pointing out the availability of conventional military options.
  • There is a contention regarding the distinction between the possibility and probability of nuclear weapons being used against a non-nuclear state like Iran.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the effectiveness of nuclear threats, arguing that conventional military capabilities should suffice and that nuclear threats may provoke further nuclear ambitions in other countries.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of threatening a non-nuclear adversary, with references to past U.S. rhetoric during conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • Participants discuss the potential motivations behind the U.S. administration's stance, including the idea that it may be a scare tactic to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
  • Some express uncertainty about whether the U.S. government has explicitly stated that nuclear options are on the table for Iran, while others believe that such statements have been made by administration officials.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the appropriateness and implications of nuclear threats against Iran, as well as the seriousness of the potential for such actions.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of geopolitical dynamics and the varying interpretations of U.S. military strategy, particularly in relation to nuclear weapons and non-nuclear adversaries.

  • #31
Entropy said:
Um... What the hell do physicists know about global politics? Their job is to build nukes, not tell people how to use them.

True enough, but they also say this in scott's first link:

“We are members of the profession that brought nuclear weapons into existence, and we feel strongly that it is our professional duty to contribute our efforts to prevent their misuse,” says Hirsch [Jorge Hirsch, professor of physics at the University of California].
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Entropy said:
Um... What the hell do physicists know about global politics? Their job is to build nukes, not tell people how to use them.

What do politicians know about politics :rolleyes: ?

EL said:
I don't think "adding the nukes to the threatening list" makes any difference from Iran's viewpoint at all. If US conventional weapons aren't a threat enough, it won't work with the nukes either

I agree with what EL said above.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Entropy said:
Um... What the hell do physicists know about global politics? Their job is to build nukes, not tell people how to use them.
They're just exercising their free market clout - I see nothing wrong with that.

"If you want us to continue developing potentially dangerous technology, you'd better give us your assurance that you'll be responsible with it (or else...)"
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Entropy said:
Um... What the hell do physicists know about global politics? Their job is to build nukes, not tell people how to use them.
Physicists are citizens of the same community, and some of them may know a lot more about global politics than most of the elected officials. In fact, given the appalling nature of US foreign policy, one has to wonder if any politician knows anything about global politics, and for that matter, knows much about anything, other then self-enrichment.

I participate in the development and use of nuclear technology. I certainly have a responsibility (and a right) to see that it used responsibly and wisely. I dare say that there are probably few people in Congress who grasp the significance of nuclear technology and energy in general. The energy policy in the US is pathetic and generally irresponsible.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Entropy said:
Um... What the hell do physicists know about global politics? Their job is to build nukes, not tell people how to use them.
It's pretty simple: They have to tell the milltary how to use the bombs without killing our guys.
And ofcource they were the guys who invented them so they do have say about what to do with nuclear weapons
 
  • #36
What do politicians know about politics ?

Good point. :smile:

They're just exercising their free market clout - I see nothing wrong with that.

I'm not saying they don't have a right to their own opinions. Just wondering why it would be given special treatment if they dealing outside their area of expertise.

They have to tell the milltary how to use the bombs without killing our guys.

Well its too late for that now that the military already knows how to use them! :wink:
 
  • #37
Prominent U.S. Physicists Send Letter to President Bush
I wish I had thought of this response earlier -

"Why bother, he probably can't read it" :smile:
 
  • #38
EL said:
I think a simple statement like "We won't use nukes against a nonnuclear country" could calm things down significantly.

This might be old, but that's stupid. Using nukes on a non-nuclear country is safer but not cowardly.
1) We aren't going to get in trouble, atleast into a war with acountry that could invade us. We would just tick off the UN.
2) Nukes shouldn't be used on civilizans as undoubtedly stated before.
 
  • #39
Astronuc said:
I wish I had thought of this response earlier -

"Why bother, he probably can't read it" :smile:
He has demonstrated ad nauseum that he cannot even pronounce the word "nuclear", and apparently his staff either does not care, or they think that it helps him appeal to the demographic that is dumb enough to support him. Nukular?...duh! Honey, did you leave the pork rinds in the El Camino?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
17K
  • · Replies 490 ·
17
Replies
490
Views
41K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
7K
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
14K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 169 ·
6
Replies
169
Views
20K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K